PRIVATE BUSINESS

Transport for London Bill  [lords]

Ordered,
	That the promoters of Transport For London Bill [ Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the previous Session, 23rd January 2006, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, according to the provisions of the Private Business Standing Order 188A ( Suspension of  Bills).— [First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Migration

Chris Bryant: What assessment his Department has made of the effects of migration on international development projects in Africa.

Shahid Malik: As chance would have it, I have with me an excellent DFID publication, which I can commend to my hon. Friend. It is called, "Moving out of Poverty: Making Migration Work Better for Poor People", and it is the first policy paper of its kind to be produced by the Department for International Development. The report highlights both the positive and negative links between migration and poverty reduction and it encourages developing countries to consider its impact in their national planning. To provide just one example, it examines the positive contribution of migrants through remittances and support for development projects, while also examining the negative impact—the loss of skilled people and the damaging effect it can have on capacity building efforts in sectors such as health and education.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that fascinating answer— [Interruption.]—and I mean that most sincerely. However, the massive levels of migration in sub-Saharan Africa are among the biggest causes of poverty. In 2005, there were 15 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living away from their normal place of residence—in other words, 15 million displaced people, which is more than the combined populations of Berlin, Paris, Madrid and Rome. Surely we need to do far more to make it possible for people to stay where they were born and brought up so that we do not have a constant cycle of poverty and oppression.

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend says that he is being sincere—and for the record, I have always known him to be so.  [Interruption.] I will continue. As to the 15 million displaced people in sub-Saharan Africa, there are many causes: economic migration, bad governance, conflict, climate change, natural disasters, all of which cause people to believe that they have no option other than to leave and search for a better life elsewhere. Everything that DFID does in sub-Saharan Africa is aimed at addressing the root causes of displacement through poverty reduction, humanitarian relief, reconstruction work, efforts to promote participation and good governance and protection of human rights.
	Let me provide a few examples. In 2006-07 alone, we provided some £220 million in humanitarian assistance to sub-Saharan Africa and we have allocated £64.5 million this year to the Africa conflict prevention pool. We are the largest donor to the UN's central emergency response fund, contributing £42.2 million this year. We have also provided— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say gently to the Minister that he can send the list to the hon. Member by letter.

Richard Ottaway: May I draw the Minister's attention to another excellent publication, produced by the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health? It found that there was a correlation between migration and civil conflict and population growth. Will the Minister add that to his list of causes and, in providing aid to the sub-Saharan region, will he take into account programmes to address the issue of population growth?

Shahid Malik: To confirm, we certainly look at reproductive health in our programmes and we will continue to do so.

Chris McCafferty: Given the centrality of sexual and reproductive health to country-wide health plans, will my hon. Friend tell us how he is encouraging African Governments to prioritise that issue?

Shahid Malik: We have regular dialogues with African Governments on these issues and all our African programmes focus on them. That will certainly continue to be the case. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue; we can never do enough in respect of it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is estimated that 250,000 people have left Zimbabwe for South Africa and 200,000 Darfur for Chad. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says, unofficial figures put the estimate many times higher. This is a human tragedy on a grand scale: it is a human tragedy for the people involved; it is a human tragedy for the countries that have seen those people leave; and it is a human tragedy for the countries to which they are going. What more can the Government do to provide humanitarian assistance not only for the refugees but for the recipient countries, so that those refugees will face a little easier life when they arrive?

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend— [Laughter. ] I mean the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure that we are friendly. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we recently gave £8 million to the World Food Programme. I outlined some of the measures that we are taking to deal with the issue in my earlier answer, but it is not possible for one country alone to deal with it. The international community must act together to produce the impact that is so desperately needed—the impact that both the hon. Gentleman and we would like to see.

Budget Support

Tony Baldry: Which countries are receiving budget support from the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: The Department delivers poverty-reduction budget support to Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam and Nicaragua. Poverty-reduction budget support is aid given to a partner Government to support poverty-reduction programmes, and is spent with the use of the Government's financial management procurement and accountability systems.

Tony Baldry: It is good news that the Department is being given more money, but it is important to ensure that that money is spent in the best possible way. Is the Secretary of State aware of the World Bank's assertion that the outcomes of some 90 per cent. of budget support are never audited, which means that we do not know the extent of its effectiveness? Is it not time for an independent and impartial body to monitor and assess the outcomes, as has been suggested by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who brings real expertise to this issue, not least because of his service on the International Development Committee.
	The Independent Advisory Committee on Development Impact is due to hold its first meeting in just over six weeks' time, and I believe that that will give the hon. Gentleman some confidence that we take the issue seriously. It is also important to recognise the steps that we are taking on budget support in particular. The Department always conducts a fiduciary risk assessment before entering into budget support, we monitor performance regularly, additional assurance is provided by the internal audit department, and we undertake annual reporting which provides oversight through its corporate reporting and auditing mechanisms.

Eddie McGrady: What funding, if any—direct or indirect, through international monetary funds—is given to the Sudanese Government? If there is such funding, direct or indirect, would my right hon. Friend consider withholding it until such time as the Sudanese Government act in accord with international law, in the context of civil conflict and more importantly and urgently in the context of attempts to bring a cessation to the abomination of human rights abuse in that country?

Douglas Alexander: I find myself in sympathy with my hon. Friend, both because of the longer-term challenge of making progress with the comprehensive peace agreement in relation to the north-south conflict in Sudan and because of the pressing challenge of the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region. We do give considerable humanitarian assistance to the people of Sudan. I recently visited the al-Salam camp in el-Fasher in northern Darfur and saw, for example, the hugely important work undertaken by Oxfam, a British charity, in providing water and sanitation in the camps.
	As well as the humanitarian work that we are doing, there is an important diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Sudan, so that—along with signatories and non-signatories to the Darfur peace agreement—they are clear about their responsibilities. Those responsibilities include an immediate ceasefire, a cessation of aerial bombing and the facilitation of talks between all parties in important talks at the end of this month.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that budget support is an extremely important instrument for building the capacity of recipient countries, provided that strict criteria apply? Is he satisfied with recent developments in Uganda and Ethiopia which led to a cut in budget support, and does he feel that their Governments' attitude to the opposition justifies the reinstatement at this stage?

Douglas Alexander: I defer to the right hon. Gentleman's expertise, given his examination of the issues in the Select Committee, but the fact that in certain circumstances—for example, the political crisis in Ethiopia—we are prepared to withhold elements of budget support testifies to the fact that we monitor extremely carefully the circumstances in which it is appropriate for funds to flow directly through Government systems.
	That being said, I find myself in full agreement with the right hon. Gentleman's observation about budget support. It is certainly pioneering. At times it involves risks which must be judged very carefully, but it can clearly develop a sustainable means by which countries can help themselves to emerge from poverty rather than finding themselves dealing with innumerable international donors with whom, in many cases, their Governments lack the capacity to engage effectively.

Tom Clarke: In circumstances where general budget support has been cut, as in Ethiopia, will my right hon. Friend consider very carefully other means of delivering assistance, so that we can help the poorest people in the poorest countries?

Douglas Alexander: I can give my right hon. Friend exactly the assurance that he seeks. Budget support for Ethiopia was withheld in response to the political crisis in 2005, but we do not want the poor to suffer in Ethiopia as a consequence of the actions of Government. That is why, through the protection of basic services programme, we have continued to support development efforts in Ethiopia. In the last year alone, 1.2 million more children attended primary school. Over 70 per cent. of Ethiopia's children are now in school, and all households in malaria areas will have insecticide-treated bed nets by the end of this year. Those are just two examples of our continuing commitment to the people of Ethiopia.

Health Services

Madeleine Moon: What steps his Department is taking to improve health services in Africa.

Shahid Malik: The UK is improving health in Africa through multilateral aid, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and through bilateral programmes. Fifteen per cent. of DFID's aid goes to health, totalling some £800 million this year, which will rise as the DFID programme expands towards our target spending of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013. Last month, the UK launched an international health partnership to improve the effectiveness of international funding for health. Five of the IHP's first-wave countries are in Africa. They are Ethiopia, Zambia, Mozambique, Kenya and Burundi.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I am aware that in Mozambique, for example, those who suffer from HIV/AIDS sometimes face the problem that, even if they have access to antiretroviral drugs, supplies run out and the treatment cannot be sustained. Equally, some people are faced with a stark choice of either paying for their drugs or buying food. What can DFID do to ensure that those who access treatment are sustained on it?

Shahid Malik: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The UK is absolutely committed to the challenge of HIV/AIDS. That was one of the key elements of the agreement at Gleneagles. DFID has committed some £17 million in support to the Ministry of Health in Mozambique. That will help to improve, among other things, HIV/AIDS treatment, including the scaling up of access to antiretrovirals. Therefore, some progress is being made. In sub-Saharan Africa, the numbers on treatment rose tenfold from 2003 to 2006, from 100,000 to over 1.3 million. However, with only one in four in Africa able to access HIV/AIDS treatment, much more needs to be done.

James Duddridge: Given that we are off track to meet the millennium development goal on maternal health—on the current trajectory, not only will we not meet it by 2015 but we will probably not do so in the next 100 years—what more can the Government do?

Shahid Malik: That challenge is recognised throughout Government. Recently our Prime Minister met the Norwegian Prime Minister to look at an initiative to deal with that problem. Africa is the continent with the highest maternal mortality rate—there are 830 deaths per 100,000 live births. All our programmes focus on those issues. I go back to the point that I made earlier: ultimately, the UK is one player. It is by different donor countries coming together that we will have the kind of impact that I know we would all like to see.

Chris Ruane: When I visited Swaziland three years ago, we were told by the Health Minister there that Swaziland had the highest incidence of AIDS in the whole world at 43 per cent., yet thousands of doctors and nurses from Swaziland were leaving to practise abroad. What help and encouragement can the Department give to doctors and nurses from Africa who are working in the west to return to Africa to help in the fight against AIDS?

Shahid Malik: Brain drain is a high-profile concern for Africa, and a major migration and development concern for the African Union. We in this country have a code of practice under which we will not attempt to recruit health workers from countries whose Governments suggest that that might be detrimental. We are currently looking into this matter via the Global Health Workforce Alliance, which is chaired by Lord Nigel Crisp. The Secretary of State has already met him and discussions are taking place. This issue is of the utmost importance to the Government.

John Barrett: According to Save the Children, the lives of 800 children a day could be saved if their parents did not have to pay for essential health care. Will the Department work with non-governmental organisations and civil society to ensure that the health partnership translates into real action on the ground?

Shahid Malik: We are absolutely in favour of sustainable partnerships of that kind, which is why the Prime Minister launched the international health partnership only in September. Its aim is to make improvements in the area that the hon. Gentleman raises, and to work on the concerns that he and others have articulated.

Natascha Engel: All the evidence suggests that educating women in sexual health not only leads to later pregnancy but has a direct and positive impact on the economic performance of their country. What is the Department doing to promote sexual health awareness in Africa?

Shahid Malik: DFID is carrying out research into sex education. We are funding a community randomised control trial in Tanzania to inform us about the health impact of different adolescent sexual health interventions—we are investing £1.4 million in that. I recently visited Yemen where the population growth rate is such that it will double in 16 years; we are concentrating there on education for young girls, which will have an impact. Education, including sexual education, is vital in dealing with such matters.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), the Minister will know that many British health professionals want to make a personal contribution in poor countries but are too often discouraged from doing so because time spent abroad is not accredited and therefore adversely affects pension accrual, for example. Will the Minister look closely at the policy that my party has proposed to set up a health systems partnership fund? That would make a modest but useful contribution to helping in this area.

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we were already looking at that issue prior to his party's announcement. I am happy to inform him that Lord Nigel Crisp, chair of the Global Health Workforce Alliance, is looking into the issue, and that the Secretary of State has already met him.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister will know that our proposals would enable British health professionals to spend time in developing countries helping to build sustainable health systems. The proposals have been supported by VSO and many other NGOs, including the Tropical Health and Education Trust. As the Minister's party is clearly in the mood for nicking Conservative policies, will he make it a priority to implement as soon as possible our health systems partnership fund?

Shahid Malik: I think that I have already alluded to the fact that, regardless of whether they are ours or are borrowed from elsewhere, we will pass forward all good ideas to Lord Nigel Crisp, who will be looking into these matters. On nicking ideas, the hon. Gentleman will next be telling us that the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI by 2013 was his party's idea.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Andrew Gwynne: What impact he expects the comprehensive spending review to have on his Department's future spending plans.

Douglas Alexander: With the increases in aid announced last week, Britain will deliver on the promises that we made at the Gleneagles summit in 2005 and make faster progress toward the millennium development goals. We will double aid to Africa, invest more in education and health, and increase our support for growth and good governance. We will strengthen cross-government work on climate change and conflict.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm that the settlement in the comprehensive spending review means that the United Kingdom is now on track to meet the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013 on aid, and that at least half of all new aid will go to Africa, as promised at Gleneagles?

Douglas Alexander: I can give the confirmation that my hon. Friend seeks—we are now on track to meet that 0.7 per cent. GNI commitment. We are the first Government in British history who have given a time scale by which we will meet the UN target, and we took a decisive and significant step toward that goal with the comprehensive spending review announced last week.

John Bercow: Given the right hon. Gentleman's success in the spending round, will he confirm that the settlement that he secured will allow for the quadrupling of British aid to Burma, including provision for increased cross-border assistance, backing for the Shan Women's Action Network and other women's groups, and funds to assist the worthwhile and valuable efforts of exiled pro-democracy groups—all of which have been recommended by the International Development Committee?

Douglas Alexander: Let me begin by paying tribute to the work of the International Development Committee on this issue and, of course, to the high-profile role that the hon. Gentleman has taken on it. I gave very serious consideration to the recommendations of the IDC report in the summer, and I made sure that there was a carefully drafted response that reflected my determination that there should be a significant increase in the work that we are doing in this area. In addition to the terms of the report and the Government response, we have committed £1 million more toward the immediate humanitarian challenges facing Burma, in the light of the terrible events that we have witnessed in recent weeks.

Sustainable Forestry

Paddy Tipping: What steps he is taking to help develop sustainable forestry in Africa.

Gareth Thomas: We are committing over £70 million for sustainable forestry in Africa, including £50 million for the Congo basin forest, to help improve governance, reduce deforestation and safeguard the livelihoods of poor people.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that although biofuels can help to combat climate change, unless they are introduced in a planned and sustainable way, natural habitat and forestry will be destroyed? What analysis has he made of the problem, and what steps will he take to resolve them?

Gareth Thomas: I share my hon. Friend's view that biofuels have an important contribution to make in tackling the impacts of climate change. He is right to say that the increase in interest in biofuels needs to be managed in a sustainable way. We are working with a range of partners, including the World Bank and the African Development Bank, to look at exactly this issue.

Derek Wyatt: The Chinese are almost raping the forests in Gabon. What representation have this Government and the EU made to the Chinese authorities about the way in which they are abusing their mineral and forestry rights in Gabon?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend may not know, but we have been working closely through the European Union with a number of countries, including China, to address how we can improve governance of forests and conservation and reduce the rate of deforestation. UK representatives attended a conference at Beijing to look at exactly this issue, and to see how we can develop that relationship with the Chinese still further.

Zimbabwe

Shailesh Vara: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

Douglas Alexander: The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate as a result of the appalling corruption and wilful mismanagement of the Mugabe regime. We are, however, making a major contribution to humanitarian relief and working to protect the people of Zimbabwe from the worst effects of hunger and HIV.

Shailesh Vara: I thank the Secretary of State for those comments. Given that more than 3,000 people die of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe every week, does he agree with me that the measure of success is not how much money is spent, but the number of people protected from infection and the number treated? Given those circumstances, what is he doing to ensure that British aid money is used to maximum benefit?

Douglas Alexander: On the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are providing HIV treatment to 50,000 people in Zimbabwe this year and helping to keep AIDS-affected children in school. Clearly, this is a hugely challenging environment in which to be working at the moment—significant migration out of the country is taking place, its Government are in a relative state of collapse and its economy is diminishing almost by the day—but I assure hon. Members that we are determined to continue to provide humanitarian support, today and tomorrow, to the people of Zimbabwe.

David Evennett: Has the Secretary of State seen the recently published report by Save the Children, which highlighted the plight of unaccompanied children, some as young as seven years old, crossing the border from Zimbabwe to South Africa? What is his Department doing about that? Has he had any discussion with the South African Government about that important issue?

Douglas Alexander: I assure the hon. Gentleman that through various different channels we are in regular contact with the South African Government on those issues. It is clear that Zimbabwe no longer represents simply a challenge or the humanitarian crisis of one country; given the outflow of migrants, be they children or older people, it is a crisis for the entire region. I pay tribute to the work of the Independent Television News broadcasting organisation, for bringing the plight of those children to the wider attention of the British public in recent years, and to Save the Children. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to work closely with regional partners, including South Africa, to ensure that our humanitarian effort is targeted towards those most in need. Indeed, we have in recent weeks announced £8 million more for the World Food Programme to try to address the hunger needs of such populations.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Graham Brady: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 October.

Gordon Brown: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Graham Brady: The owner of a local small business wrote to me yesterday, saying:
	"I was made redundant...and started my own small business...I am approaching retirement and was hoping the sale would help support my pension which has already reduced by...the raid on pensions made by Gordon Brown."— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Graham Brady: Under the new tax rules, my constituent's tax bill will rise from £2,520 to £9,504. Can the Prime Minister tell him what he has done wrong and why he is being penalised?

Gordon Brown: We have cut capital gains tax from 40 per cent. since 1997, when the Tories were in power. We have, as the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges, the most successful economy. We have created 2.5 million jobs, unemployment is down today, and businesses are thriving.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last Saturday marked the anniversary of the collapse of Farepak, in which 122,000 small savers were robbed of their money. I have just met the administrator, who tells me that she is unlikely to pay back any money before Christmas this year. In addition, none of the reports will be made public under law. Would he be prepared to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) to discuss how we can speed up the process and get justice for the victims of Farepak?

Gordon Brown: What happened to Farepak was completely unacceptable. We have worked very closely with all those people who have lost money as a result of Farepak and we will continue to do so. I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members who are concerned about Farepak so that justice is done.

David Cameron: In the past four years, the number of people who have died from the hospital-acquired infection clostridium difficile has trebled. Ninety patients died in one hospital trust alone. The Healthcare Commission said last week:
	"where trusts...are under severe pressure to meet targets relating to finance and access, concern for infection control may be undermined."
	Will the Prime Minister now accept that the number and extent of his top-down targets are contributing to this problem?

Gordon Brown: It is because we are concerned about MRSA and C. difficile that in the past few weeks we have taken very special measures: isolation wards; we are about to appoint 3,000 more matrons; and we are about to do a deep clean of hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of targets and cites the Healthcare Commission, so let me quote to him what its chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy, has said:
	"Targets or their equivalent are an inevitable feature of a modern 21st century healthcare system...The obligation to meet targets cannot be used as an excuse for failing to meet other managerial objectives."
	He also says—and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will take this into account—
	"targets are not to blame for the trust leaders taking their eye off the ball."
	He adds:
	"Managers always have to deal with conflicting priorities and plenty of organisations...do it successfully."
	In other words, it is not targets that are to blame. We have got to invest in the health service. Will he invest in the health service as we will?

David Cameron: It is clear that the Prime Minister has not read the Healthcare Commission report. The report could not be clearer. On the Maidstone hospital, it says:
	"senior managers were...reluctant to implement major infection control measures"
	because of the need to meet targets. It was not just that one hospital. The report on Stoke Mandeville said:
	"The achievement of the Government's targets was seen as more important than the management of the clinical risk inherent in C. difficile. This was a significant failing."
	Almost one in two hospitals agrees that targets are getting in the way of infection control. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee both agree. What makes the Prime Minister think that he is right and they are wrong?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has not done his research. Targets are responsible for waiting lists, which were at a quarter of a million, being almost zero for those people at six months. Targets are responsible for a 17 per cent. fall in heart disease. Targets are responsible for a 40 per cent. fall in coronary disease.
	The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Healthcare Commission. I have quoted Sir Ian Kennedy, who is its chairman, saying that targets are not to blame. Let me also quote the new chief executive of Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. He said:
	"targets are there for a reason but that should not stop us from focusing majorly on patient safety, that is the number one priority".
	The Leader of the Opposition should recognise that the reason we can invest more in tackling MRSA and C. difficile is that we are spending more money on the health service. He voted against that spending.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister came to office saying— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) will not keep shouting. You have a difficulty in Prime Minister's questions because you keep shouting. You should not do it.

David Cameron: It comes to something when you have to tick off the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, Mr. Speaker.
	The Prime Minister said that he would listen to people, but he is not listening to those working in the NHS. The Healthcare Commission quotes one senior manager saying that
	"if anyone says the top priorities aren't money and targets, they are lying".
	The nurse of the year, who resigned today, says that she is leaving because of bureaucracy, reorganisation and paperwork.
	MRSA deaths have quadrupled. C. difficile deaths have trebled. If we are going to deal with hospital-acquired infections, does not the Prime Minister understand that he has got to listen to the people who work in the NHS?

Gordon Brown: It is precisely because I have been listening to the British people that we have put an extra £100 million into tackling MRSA and C. difficile. It is precisely because we are listening that since I took over this job we are now insisting that every patient who comes to hospital will be screened against the possibility of MRSA. It is precisely because we are listening that we are going to do a deep clean of hospital wards. It is precisely because I am listening that we are going to double the number of matrons.
	None of that extra expenditure would be possible if we accepted the Conservative party's plans on spending. It has a £6 billion black hole in its spending plans, which would mean deep cuts in the national health service. The Leader of the Opposition should listen to the experts on this matter, who are saying that targets are not to blame. We need investment and reform in the health service, and only we on this side of the House can do it.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to ask me questions, he should call an election. In the meantime, he says that this is all about how much he listens, so let us ask about the other important issue of this week and whether he is listening. His manifesto promised a referendum on the European constitution. The overwhelming majority of people in this country want a referendum on the European constitution. European leaders, the European Scrutiny Committee and his own representative on the European Convention all say that the new treaty is the same as the constitution. Will he tell us why will he not grant a referendum on that constitution?

Gordon Brown: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has given up on the health service now. Let us come to the European issue.
	In 1992, every member of that shadow Cabinet refused a referendum on a far more significant treaty. The Foreign Secretary voted against a referendum on Maastricht. Why is this treaty different? It is different because it is not a constitutional treaty; it is an amending treaty. Why is it different? It is different because we won a protocol in the charter of rights, we got an opt-in on justice and home affairs, we got an emergency brake on social security, and we have exempted the security issues. All those changes have been brought about in the past few months, and that is why not one Government in Europe—apart from the one in Ireland, who are bound constitutionally to have a referendum on anything—are proposing a referendum on this treaty. Just as those on the Conservative Front Bench voted against a referendum in 1992, they should have the honesty to vote against it now.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the next question, may I ask the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) to be quiet as well? He is not the only one, but if I get him to be quiet I am sure that the others will follow.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister called my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) the Foreign Secretary. I have to say to him that it is just a matter of time.
	Let us be clear about what Labour's representative on the European Convention, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—[Hon. Members: "Where is she?"] Where is she? She has probably been sent for re-education. Let us be clear about what she said:
	"The red lines are red herrings. It's a matter of trust and integrity. A referendum was promised. It should be delivered. If Labour can't trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?"
	It is a simple question: is she not right?

Gordon Brown: We will do what is right in the interests of the British people. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to trade quotes, he should listen to the chairman of his own democracy commission, who says that the proposal for a referendum under the Tory plans is "crackpot", "dotty" and "frankly absurd". I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes pre-rehearsed soundbites— [Interruption.] I know that he is good at PR— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gordon Brown: I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition is good at PR, but did he not go too far last weekend when he went to California and said in a newspaper interview:
	"look at me and think of Arnold Schwarzenegger"?
	That is the last thing on anybody's mind.

David Cameron: People will look at the Prime Minister and just say, "Here is a man who breaks his promise." Why does he not admit that the reason he will not have a referendum is that he is scared of losing it? Does he not understand that if he breaks his promise on this, no one will trust him on anything else?

Gordon Brown: If we were deciding whether to join the euro, we would have a referendum. If the treaty were the old constitutional treaty, we would have a referendum. Because it is an amending treaty that is not fundamental change, we have managed to negotiate red lines in Europe which mean that the national interest is protected. Britain will decide on justice and home affairs; Britain will decide on foreign policy where it is multilateral; Britain will decide on social security; and Britain will decide on national security. We will at all times stand up for the British national interest.

Derek Wyatt: On Saturday evening, I sense that the nation will be watching its television sets as England plays South Africa in what has been an extraordinary Rugby world cup. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would like to send a message to the team.

Gordon Brown: I think I might be able to speak for the whole House here. I think the whole House wishes to congratulate the England team on a magnificent performance in reaching the final. I think the whole House wants to wish Brian Ashton, Phil Vickery and the whole team our best wishes for Saturday's match. As someone who, like my hon. Friend, follows rugby, and met the England team recently, I wish to send our best wishes so that England returns with the world cup on Saturday night.

Vincent Cable: rose— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Vincent Cable.

Vincent Cable: Does the Prime Minister agree with the comments of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that there is a moral case for rewarding marriage through the tax system?

Gordon Brown: May I first of all say—and I think I speak for the whole House—that we send our best wishes to the former leader of the Liberal party, who is a distinguished parliamentarian? He is a man of integrity, he is a man of honesty and he is a man of decency. Let me welcome the shadow Chancellor of the Liberal party to his position as temporary leader of the Liberal party. If things go on in this Parliament at this rate of change, every single Liberal Member will have the chance to be leader of the Liberal party.
	As far as the tax issues are concerned, it is because we recognise marriage in the tax system that we have made the changes that we have on inheritance tax; it is because we recognise marriage in the tax system that— [Interruption.] It is only possible because we recognise marriage in the tax system. But as far as children's tax credits and child benefit are concerned, I believe that the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Prime Minister for his gracious comments and for his welcome.
	Both of us are happily married men, but why has the right hon. Gentleman crafted an inheritance tax system that discriminates against millions of unmarried couples and their children? And why is he lining up with the Tories to defend the principle that these families should not merely be condemned to the everlasting flames of hell, but should be taxed more on the way?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me into the secrets of his marriage. It has always been the case that marriage is recognised in the inheritance tax system. I have not seen him making very detailed proposals to change that in recent years. As far as inheritance tax is concerned, if we took up his proposal and extended it to everyone, that would be a very great additional expense. I do not know how Liberal party policies would be able to cope with yet another spending commitment, because in the last few days we have had commitments to a border police force, high-speed rail links, more money to Visit Britain and reducing VAT on historic buildings—£18 billion of spending commitments in all. The most recent one that I want to draw attention to is more investment in bullying prevention; perhaps they should look at that as a party.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Treasury Committee, which is looking into Northern Rock, would have a lot more clout if only it could intervene before such financial dealings got out of control? Is he aware that the Notting Hill finance group has got another financial scam—to spend £3.5 billion of taxpayers' money and raise only £650 million? That is another Northern Rock waiting to explode. And one of them has got previous—he was involved in Black Wednesday.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a £6 billion black hole in the Conservatives' promises. They cannot afford to pay for their spending commitments and are back to where they were in 1992—with more spending, lower taxes and less borrowing. Where did that end? It ended not only in Black Wednesday, but with 3 million people unemployed, public spending cuts and 15 per cent. mortgage rates. And the economic adviser to the Chancellor at the time is now the Leader of the Opposition.

David Davies: The Prime Minister should be aware that the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers regiment has sent more than 100 Territorial Army soldiers to Iraq in support of hard-pressed regular British soldiers. Will he therefore explain to the House why funding for the Territorial Army has been slashed by millions of pounds, and why the Royal Monmouthshire has been told that it can no longer recruit?

Gordon Brown: I shall immediately look into what the hon. Gentleman says about the Royal Monmouthshire, but I can tell him that expenditure on the defence forces as a whole is going to rise by more than £1 billion a year over the next few years. We have just made it possible for there to be extra commitment to equipment in Afghanistan. We will do everything in our power to support the magnificent men and women fighting for our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I hope that that would be common ground between the parties.

Howard Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that obesity is the most important public health issue facing our nation today? Not only does it shorten the lives of sufferers but, ultimately, it affects the whole of society. Does he share my view that obesity cannot be tackled by Government alone, but will he outline the Government's proposals to deal with this very important problem?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is a doctor, and he brings to the subject a great deal of knowledge about the damage done to young children when obesity is allowed to go unchallenged. Not only must we deal with the advertising of unacceptable foods and persuade the food labelling authorities to make food labelling better to deal with those foods, but we must have a push on fitness in our schools. That is why we will move from two hours to five hours of sport a week in our schools over the next few years, and every young child will have the chance to enjoy a range of sports. That will be possible only because we are able to spend the money necessary to recruit sports teachers and improve sports education in our schools. That would not be possible if we had a £6 billion black hole in our finances.

Michael Fabricant: Last Friday, I saw how moved the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary were at the opening of the armed forces memorial near Lichfield. It has places for the names of 16,000 men and women who have lost their lives serving their country since 1945, but will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to clarify precisely how many troops currently in Iraq will return to the UK before Christmas?

Gordon Brown: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who made that new national memorial possible. It is in the centre of our nation, so friends, relatives and families from all over the country can visit and pay tribute to those who have lost their lives since the second world war. As he rightly says, there are already 16,000 names commemorated in the stone of what is a most magnificent statue and memorial, which has been created using donations from large numbers of people. I hope that all Members of Parliament will be able to help their constituents to visit it.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about Iraq. As I have said before, the numbers go down from 5,500 to 2,500 by next spring. They go down from 5,500 to 4,500 and then to 4,000 in southern Iraq over the next few months.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In view of the appalling ongoing situation in Burma, I welcome yesterday's announcement by European Ministers of stronger sanctions against that country, but I especially welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's promise of aid if the Burma regime moves towards greater democracy and reconciliation. What more does he think that we can do to help the people of Burma?

Gordon Brown: I think that hon. Members of all parties in this House will agree that the Burmese regime is repressive, illegal and undemocratic. The sanctions agreed by the EU this week are an important way to deal with the export and import of timber, but we must move forward and look at investment sanctions as well. Members of the Burmese regime must know that unless they change, we will step up the sanctions against them. At the same time, we support the efforts of Mr. Gambari, the UN envoy who is now in the region. I hope that he will be given the chance to meet a wide range of people in Burma so that he can assess the situation.
	My hon. Friend has taken a big interest in these matters over the years and, as she said, we are ready to support a reinvestment programme with funds so that the poverty, injustice and inequality that exist in Burma can be tackled if there is a move towards reconciliation and democracy in that country. Our strategy is not only to push the regime to change, but to offer to a new regime and Government our support for economic development and social improvement. I believe that all countries around the world, including China and the Asian countries, will be prepared to support that initiative.

Adrian Sanders: This week an English Heritage survey found that 75 per cent. of respondents felt that seaside towns were shabby and unattractive, and that the Government should invest more to preserve what is distinctive about them. My constituency of Torbay works hard to upgrade its facilities and to make it an attractive place, and I am sure the same is true of all our seaside towns. What are the Government going to do to help the renaissance and regeneration of these important contributors to the British economy?

Gordon Brown: I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do more for our coastal towns over the next few years. We must make them more attractive for tourism and we must aid their economic regeneration. That is why we have increased real-terms expenditure on coastal towns by nearly 40 per cent. over the last 10 years. As a result of employment growth, there has been a 12 per cent. rise in employment in coastal towns over the last decade, compared with 7 per cent. for the economy as a whole. Regional development agencies and local government will be given the resources that are needed so that we can regenerate, where it is necessary, the coastal towns that can serve our economy by being great tourist attractions as well as lovely places to live in.

Jeff Ennis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency 7 per cent. of people were claiming jobseeker's allowance in 1997 and that the figure is now just 3.1 per cent.? Does he agree that the main reason for that success is the implementation by the Government of the new deal and the creation of better pathways into work?

Gordon Brown: There are two and a half million more people in jobs than in 1997. Two million people have been helped by the new deal since 1997 either to get training or a job. A large number of people are coming off incapacity benefit as a result of the measures we are taking. More single parents are going into work; there are now 700,000 single parents—not more than 1 million—on the inactive register. We have taken the number of people on income support and other benefits down by 1 million over the last 10 years, but that is possible only because we have a new deal that is able to help people get back into work. Unfortunately, the Conservatives would scrap the new deal. Let the debate begin: do we want a new deal that will help people to get jobs and equip them for the future so that British workers can get British jobs, or do we want a £6 billion black hole in public expenditure?

Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the past year Army families were forced to call the Ministry of Defence special housing helpline 400,000 times? After 10 years of Labour Government, how does that dreadful state of affairs square with his pledge in Basra to uphold the military covenant?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of Ministry of Defence accommodation, because as part of the spending round we have agreed that over the next 10 years £5 billion will be spent on accommodation. That is not simply for renovating existing barracks; it will also make it possible for young servicemen and their families to become owner-occupiers for the first time. I hope the hon. Gentleman will support the additional expenditure. I have to tell the Conservatives that when we decide to make additional expenditures on defence, housing and health—where I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he had to apologise for the Leader of the Opposition when the right hon. Gentleman said that hospitals would close—I hope that the Opposition, instead of having a black hole in their figures, will support that extra public investment.

Laura Moffatt: Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend visited Ceres Power in Crawley, which is developing a low-energy fuel cell that will probably make sure that many of our homes have low-energy output in the future. In last week's comprehensive spending review, the important environmental transformation fund was announced. How will Ceres Power and similar companies be able to take advantage of it?

Gordon Brown: I was very grateful for the chance to visit my hon. Friend's constituency; she is a wonderful MP, representing the interests of her constituents. Last week, we announced that we will continue with our programme that is doubling science investment, and one of the major beneficiaries will be the environmental and energy industries. I see not only British inventions flowing from that but new British jobs in the years to come. Again, I hope that there will be all-party support for the rapidly increasing science budget so that British inventions can create British jobs for British workers.

David Evennett: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger and concern about the proposed changes to hospital provision in south-east London, particularly the cuts and downgrades proposed to our own hospital, Queen Mary's, Sidcup? Can he confirm that the consultation will not be a sham and that he will actually listen to what local people say—or is this just another example of London being let down by Labour?

Gordon Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in London alone there have been 27 new hospital schemes over the past few years; there are 44,000 more NHS staff; there are 650 more dentists; and there is more investment going into the hospital service than ever before. I hope that he will not fall for the scare stories peddled by the Leader of the Opposition about hospitals that are not closing and about the effects of the Darzi report. We are investing more than ever in hospitals and the health service in London, and that is possible only because the economy is moving forward and we are able to create the wealth in this country as a result of a Labour Government.

Foresight Review of Obesity

Alan Johnson: The chief scientific adviser and his Foresight team have today published the report, "Tackling Obesities: Future Choices", which pulls together the latest evidence and expertise on this vital issue and seeks to answer the question: how can we deliver a sustainable response to obesity over the next 40 years? Foresight exists to challenge existing policy, and the report is nothing if not challenging.
	The report predicts that, on current trends, by 2050, 60 per cent. of men, 50 per cent. of women and 26 per cent. of children and young people will be obese. Incidents of type 2 diabetes are set to rise by 70 per cent.; attacks of stroke by 30 per cent.; and cases of coronary heart disease by 20 per cent. Obesity-related diseases will cost the nation an extra £45.5 billion a year.
	The implications for those individuals who are directly affected are profound. An obese young man who remains obese, as most are likely to do, will die, on average, 13 years younger than his peer group. However, the report is based on current trends. Our destiny need not be pre-ordained, and we can buck those trends, provided that we are all prepared to take the necessary steps. Indeed, the work assembled for this project gives the UK a platform to become a global leader in tackling a problem that is challenging policy makers across the world.
	In recent years, we have focused more closely on child obesity. Sure Start children's centres provide parents with high-quality health advice in the crucial pre-school years. We now intend to start earlier still with the proposed nutritional grants for pregnant mothers. Over the past three years, the share of children on the school fruit and vegetable scheme who are eating five a day has increased from just over a quarter to just under a half. We have introduced tough new nutritional standards; we are investing almost £100 million a year to improve school food; and we have added an entitlement to cooking lessons on the national curriculum. We have established the national child measurement programme, which will provide the largest database of its kind in the world on children's weight. In 2004, only half of all pupils did two hours of high-quality PE and sport every week; today the figure is 86 per cent. We are now raising our sights so that every child has the chance of five hours sport every week, backed by a further £100 million of additional investment.
	Working with the Food Standards Agency and the food industry, we have introduced front-of-pack labelling, and we have worked with Ofcom to prohibit television advertising of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar during children's programmes. This was a bold measure, but we are determined to go further if the evidence supports the need to do so. We will therefore be reviewing the impact of the restrictions on the nature and balance of food promotion to all children, across all media.
	The Foresight report endorses interventions such as these, but argues for an even bolder approach. The report says that although personal responsibility is a crucial determinant of our body weight, our environment also plays a vital role. The chilling reality is that modern life makes us overweight. As Sir David King puts it:
	"We evolved in a world of relative food scarcity and hard physical work—now energy dense food is abundant and labour saving technologies abound".
	Modern transport systems, sedentary jobs and convenience food make life more comfortable, but also lie at the heart of this dilemma. In a sense, we are victims of our economic success. The pace of technological revolution outstrips human evolution.
	Tackling this problem calls for a fundamental shift in approach. Although the report projects us forward 50 years, it does of course require action today, and many of the areas identified in the report cannot be tackled successfully by Government alone. I hope this report will trigger the national debate that is essential if we are to rise to the challenge.
	The report highlights the responsibilities of employers to look after their employees' health, which is in the interests not just of their staff, but of the business: enhancing performance and improving productivity. The report also shows how small changes to everyday routines can make a real difference. For instance, employers might look at providing loans for bikes, not just season tickets; subsidising gym membership, not just canteens; and even putting out fruit at meetings, rather than biscuits. But the report also points to more substantial measures—for instance, with the built environment. Local authorities must ensure that healthy living is built into the infrastructure of our towns and cities so that planning systems improve our health and well-being.
	The report examines the availability of, and exposure to, obesogenic food and drinks. Front-of-pack labelling is now increasingly prevalent, but industry has yet fully to embrace the colour coding system. There is emerging evidence that the FSA's labelling system is more effective at informing consumers and I want to work with the industry to see this adopted, but the report underlines the expectation for change. I have also asked the FSA to conduct an immediate investigation into the use of trans fats, to examine whether there is more we should ask the food industry to do in this area.
	The report talks about the importance of targeted public health interventions. There are regional disparities in the prevalence of obesity and I hope that primary care trusts will look at what more can be done through advice and training in health consumption and activity to help obese people to achieve sustainable reductions in their weight. Underpinning all this is an acknowledgment that Government must do more. We will develop a comprehensive cross-government strategy on obesity to respond to the evidence in this report. Because of the need for concerted action on a number of fronts, I will convene a cross-governmental ministerial group to guide our approach.
	We will continue to focus particularly on children. More than 80 per cent. of obese 10 to 14-year-olds remain obese into adulthood. As part of the spending review, we have already set our ambition to reverse the growth in obesity so that, by 2020, we reduce the proportion of overweight and obese children to the levels in 2000. Ensuring that our health service is as focused on prevention as it is on treatment is already a priority, and obesity epitomises the need for that change.
	In the past, tackling obesity has always been regarded as a matter of personal will-power, but as the report starkly demonstrates, people in the UK are not more gluttonous than previous generations and individual action alone will not be sufficient. Obesity is a consequence of abundance, convenience and underlying biology. Solutions will not be found in exhortations for greater individual responsibility, or in what the report calls the futility of isolated initiatives.
	Let us begin the national debate here in Parliament today, and let us use the report to forge the consensus that will allow the UK to pioneer the new long-term integrated approach that the issue desperately requires. I commend the statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Indeed, I am grateful—I hope that the House is grateful—to all those who worked on the Foresight programme and for their report.
	The Foresight programme makes a clear argument: our human biology has not much changed, but our environment and our society have. We lead less active lives; we enjoy plentiful energy-dense foods. It has become normal to be overweight. It will become normal to be obese if we do not act now. Our response to this needs to change or the slide into obesity will create an epidemic of disease and the national health service will not cope.
	The public health Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), called this a "wake up call". If it is, the Government have been asleep for the past decade while the alarm bells have been ringing. When the Labour Government came to office, they abolished the target on obesity that was set in the 1992 "Health of the Nation" White Paper. In 2004, the Health Committee's report on obesity said:
	"On present trends, obesity will soon surpass smoking as the greatest cause of premature loss of life."
	In 2004, the Government abandoned their previous stance and set a target to halt the rise in childhood obesity by 2010. Since then, the rates have continued to go up, and what has been the Government's response to that? It had been to push the target back from 2010 to 2020. Frankly, we can see why they have failed. The Secretary of State talked about the child measurement programme, but what is the point of a programme that does not lead to any action? Children are measured so that there is an ability to take subsequent action. This is the way in which the Government work: targets as a substitute for achievement when what we really need is action—not gimmicks or one-off initiatives, but a sustained plan. As the Foresight programme makes clear, that plan has to tackle the whole map of factors that contribute to rising levels of obesity.
	The plan must start with nutrition in pregnancy and early years. There is no evidence that the Secretary of State's voucher scheme alone will work. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has proposed guidelines for early years nutrition and all those proposals need to be supported. The plan must include the reformulation of foods. My colleague in the European Parliament, John Bowis, earlier this year led a parliamentary initiative to ban synthetic trans fats in Europe.
	As the Government said earlier this year, saturated fats are the greater public health hazard. We need a supply chain initiative that will reduce fats, sugar and salt progressively and substantially. We must also promote good diet, targeting certain junk foods—today the Prime Minister called them "unacceptable foods". Nutrient profiling that stigmatises all cheese as a junk food just forfeits credibility.
	Three years ago, when the Government published their public health White Paper, I argued for a combined traffic light and guideline daily amount system of front-pack food labelling. The Government got it wrong then, and now we have several confusing labelling systems. Will the Secretary of State today agree that the Government will back a combined traffic light and GDA labelling scheme?
	Will the Secretary of State commit today to a national research centre on obesity? Will he commit to a nationwide programme to identify cardiovascular risk? Will he commit to supporting proven exercise referral schemes? Will he commit to ring-fenced public health budgets so that we cannot carry on seeing such budgets being raided to meet national health service deficits? Will he explain to the House why the number of public health staff has halved? Will he explain why primary care trusts are not on track to have trained school nurses in place by 2010, as was promised? Will he tell the House why the lottery funding for community sport has been halved, when half the population do no sport and take no active recreation?
	Today, the Secretary of State said that he will develop a comprehensive cross-Government strategy on obesity. Three years ago his predecessor said at the Dispatch Box that he would develop a cross-Government campaign on obesity. The words do not change, but delivery never takes place. For a decade, the Government have presided over an escalating public health crisis. A succession of gimmicks has had little impact. There has never been the comprehensive action that is required. The issue is not just about individual choices; it is about social responsibility—our responsibility for our health. It is about stronger families that give young people the guidance and self-esteem necessary to make healthy choices and lead healthy lives, stronger communities that promote activity and sport, and corporate social responsibility to promote good diet and cuts to fats, sugar and salt, and to ensure that affordable diets are on offer in the most deprived areas.
	There is an analogy to climate change. In both cases, we need a cultural shift, technological innovation, a framework of legislation, and Government action, and we need individuals to respond. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party have led the argument for a greener Britain through social responsibility. I can today commit the next Conservative Government to meeting our obesity and public health challenges, through social responsibility, to ensure a safer, greener and healthier Britain.

Alan Johnson: I echo the hon. Gentleman's words about the work of the Foresight team. The review is a comprehensive piece of work. A group of experts spent two years formulating the evidence, and the review gives us an opportunity to become world leaders in tackling the problem. I really do not want to look back—

Michael Penning: I bet you don't.

Alan Johnson: Well, I just think that the report deserves discussion in Parliament, rather than a simple Punch and Judy show.  [Interruption.] Well, I do believe that. I believe that obesity is one of the long-term issues on which politicians have an obligation to forge a consensus. I do not expect the Opposition to be in power for at least another 20 or 30 years, but undoubtedly Governments will change. Undoubtedly the Opposition will be in power at some stage over the coming years—I leave aside the Liberal Democrats. We must forge a consensus on the issue that allows the British people to believe that whatever Government come along, there is a comprehensive, integrated strategy to deal with what the Foresight report says is one of the most profound dangers and threats that the world faces.
	Having said that, I will go through the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) before I end my response by saying that I agree with much of what he said about the need to tackle the issue of good diet and the need to involve Ofcom more closely. Any objective look at what has happened in the past few years would suggest that, as the Foresight report recognises, the Government have taken a number of measures that are crucial to tackling the issues, and child obesity in particular. The first thing to say is that we commissioned the report. We set up the Foresight unit specifically to look at the issues long-term.
	Secondly, we introduced the tough new nutritional standards that have been in place since September as regards the rubbish that was in vending machines in our schools. Over the past three years, the share of children on the school fruit and vegetable scheme who eat five a day has gone up from a quarter to just under half. Some 86 per cent. of school children now do at least two hours of high-quality sport or physical education. The Department for Transport is investing £15 million in the national cycling network, and 450 schools are due to benefit from that. We put £1 billion more into sport in this country. All of those measures and more are important, but that brings us back to the Foresight group's comment about the futility of isolated initiatives. What we need is much greater integration, and the Government need to do more in that regard as well, but we need to forge a political consensus on the matter across the House.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) says that we have abandoned the target for 2010. We had a fairly modest target of stopping the rise in childhood obesity by 2010. As part of a discussion of the latest round of public service agreements, and educated by the early draft of the Foresight report, we decided to be far more ambitious and say that rather than halting the rise, we should reverse it to 2000 levels. That will take longer than 2010, which is why the aim is to achieve the target by 2020.
	The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the national weighing and measuring programme is right. I agree that we need to give that a legislative push. From the early results, it looks as though we are getting about 90 per cent. compliance, but that must be properly tested.
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about ring-fenced budgets. I am surprised by his remarks. Opposition Members have been speaking about the need for the NHS to be separated from politicians, with no targets and with the money being handed down and local trusts allowed to get on with it. The right approach is for us to give the money out to health trusts and to make them responsible for dealing with the issue, ensuring that there are indicative measures. The proper place to put the emphasis on public health is through the operating framework. We will do that at the end of the year.
	The hon. Gentleman's other point—on public health staff—is a hardy perennial, and I was disappointed that he raised it in this debate. The number of nurses working in primary and community care settings has increased by 31,500 or 40 per cent. since 1997. That includes a 35 per cent. increase in the number of school nurses, so the number of people working on health in communities has increased enormously, as has the budget for public health and throughout the health service. All our aims are predicated on the massive increase in investment that we have put into the health service since 1997.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about where the focus needs to be now. Indeed, I dealt with that in the statement. We need to ensure that we go further on colour coding and that we talk to the industry. We do not want to be attacked for unnecessary regulation. We want to persuade the industry, with the benefit of the report, that we all have a responsibility. Of course the Government have a huge responsibility, but so do others. If the Foresight report does not point us in the right direction, nothing will.

Norman Lamb: Another day, another health statement. It is good to be back.

Julian Lewis: Another day, another Lib Dem leader.  [Laughter.]

Norman Lamb: The humour from the Conservative Benches is wonderful, but the guffaws are slightly forced.
	I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement. He is right that the report must be taken seriously. Unless we take decisive action, the consequences for people's health of obesity, such as diabetes and heart conditions, could be devastating and will bankrupt the NHS. It is important to stress that we should all take personal responsibility as individuals and as parents. Perhaps the three of us Front-Bench spokesmen should take part in the Great London run next year. I invite the Secretary of State to join me. I did it this year, and the Lib Dem health team is in pretty live condition— [Interruption]. Mr. Speaker, come to my aid. There is an awful lot of noise in the background.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to help the hon. Gentleman out, we must let him speak and ask questions.

Norman Lamb: It is also right that we should hold the Government to account for their action or inaction. Is this not a case of "here we go again"? In 2004 the White Paper promised a long-term strategy to tackle obesity, and Wanless urged joined-up thinking. In a high-profile announcement the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who was a Health Minister at the time, was put in charge of tackling obesity. Now, after three years of inaction, what do the Government propose? They propose a three-year comprehensive strategy on obesity. I know that the Government are famous for repeating announcements, but to take three years to repeat the announcement seems to take the biscuit.

John Pugh: Not the biscuit!

Hon. Members: The fruit.

Norman Lamb: Indeed, take the fruit.
	We also have the inevitable, rather vacuous claims that the UK can be a world leader on the subject, yet in the real world the problem is getting massively worse and the UK compares badly with most other countries. Why did Derek Wanless conclude that his 2004 recommendations had effectively been ignored? Why have the public health budgets been raided to stave off financial crisis in many parts of the health service? Why have we no idea about how much we are spending on public health? How on earth can we monitor it if we do not measure how much we are spending on it in a given year? Why has the number of public health consultants and registrars declined?
	Why has the take-up of school meals declined by almost 500,000 in the past two years? Schools now have to weigh their children, but why is there no follow-up action to give the schools the opportunity to do anything to tackle the problem that they uncover? Is it not right that the top priority must be to tackle child obesity, both through more exercise and through better diet?
	The report highlights the risk of polarisation of society between
	"the junk-food eating, less-educated poor and functional food eating, better-informed higher classes".
	It highlights the importance of education, yet the statement is silent on the horrifying potential inequality in health outcomes between rich and poor. What is the Government's strategy to tackle that? Overall, is this not one of the worst examples of great rhetoric not being matched by action?

Alan Johnson: I do not think the report is an example of that at all. The hon. Gentleman welcomes the report, so I assume he has read it. It was not I who said that it gives us the opportunity to lead the world on the issue. The report itself states that the work assembled for the project gives the UK a platform to become a global leader in tackling a problem that is challenging policy makers across the world. It points out that nowhere across the world is there a comprehensive strategy to tackle the problem. It identifies some important community initiatives, such as the North Karelia project in Finland, which had remarkable success. The report suggests that we consider setting up a similar project in a couple of regions or cities in the UK.
	The report makes it clear that no one has a magic bullet and that there is no single answer. There is no use waiting for some kind of medical technology to produce a magic pill or tackle the issue. That is not going to happen. The report concentrates our attention on the need to rise above the political fray and to accept that mistakes have been made, although I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The science has moved on and our approach has moved on. One of the reasons why we commissioned the report and sponsored it is that we recognised that we were running to catch up on the evidence that the scientists were producing on the need to tackle obesity.
	We can consider various initiatives. The hon. Gentleman mentioned health inequalities. The report states that the Government's action in tackling health inequalities and climate change could help, because energy saving could help to encourage people to exercise more.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position—you two are such chums, Mr. Speaker, on unhelpful comments from the back—that the statement was silent on that. In my statement to Parliament, I set out what is in the report, picking out some of the issues. The statement the day before yesterday—there does seem to be one almost daily—pointed out that we will introduce 100 GP practices into the 25 per cent. most deprived areas to try to deal with the problem of under-doctored areas. The report points to a series of measures that need to be taken, and tackling health inequalities is crucial. The hon. Gentleman talks about the day-to-day banter that we sometimes have, but the report will have an important role in tackling these problems in the longer term.
	The reduction in the take-up of school meals has also been mentioned, so let me point out yet again that the city I represent followed Finland's lead and became the first to try to tackle health inequalities and problems with educational attainment by saying that every primary school pupil should be able to have a free breakfast, free fruit and free lunch. What is more, we did that before Jamie Oliver, and it had a remarkable impact. The programme is due to be assessed by Hull university, yet the incoming Lib Dem authority cancelled the scheme this year—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Yes, they abolished it. So much for free school meals as a means of tackling deprivation. The Lib Dems in Hull say that we have to introduce this nationally, but it is not a problem for Kingston upon Thames; it is problem for Kingston upon Hull, so the local authority should be involved in tackling it. It is a disgrace that the programme has been abandoned.
	Putting all that aside, I hope that the Liberal Democrats—whichever leader is in charge of them this week, next week or the week after—will engage fully in the debate. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have a huge contribution to make to tackling some of these long-term problems—and the Conservative party does as well. As for the Great London run, I will consult shadow spokespersons to ensure that we all give the same answer!

Howard Stoate: May I congratulate the Foresight team on its excellent report and pay particular tribute to the work of the Minister for public health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who made an excellent speech at the launch this morning? I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understands the frustration of people like me, who know how difficult it is to tackle this enormously complex problem of obesity, and that, like me, he recognises that the Government cannot solve the problem on their own. A whole societal approach is necessary, involving literally everyone in the country. Will he consider my wish list of the day? First, will he consider introducing a mandatory labelling scheme that could be agreed across the board—irrespective of whether individual supermarkets like it or not? Next, will he commit to having a school nurse in every single school, which would make a huge difference to the public health of the nation? Also, can I ask him to be even tougher on food advertising to children, particularly in respect of foods high in fat, salt and sugar, as that alone could make a considerable difference?

Alan Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his customary constructive comments and for giving us a good lead-in during Prime Minister's questions. I join him in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Minister for public health and, indeed, the Minister for sport and the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, all of whom were signatories to the report's foreword. My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the inability of Governments alone to tackle the problem. The report makes that point repeatedly and eloquently, which will provide a huge boost to my hon. Friend's other point about the need to convince those involved of the need to produce a better food labelling scheme. I am not saying that I am going to push anyone into anything, but as Bob Dylan once said,
	"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."
	As far as school nurses are concerned, we cannot commit to one for every school, but our plans relate to clusters of schools and we intend to follow our successful approach to school sport. We want the expertise to be present in order to benefit a number of schools in an area.

Nicholas Winterton: May I advise the Secretary of State that I believe that there is an obesity pill, so his earlier comment was perhaps ill informed? In connection with the increased hours for sport and exercise in schools, will the Secretary of State ensure that team games—not just any exercise—are provided in school? We need team games, which I believe are the best for keeping young people fit, and to have team games, we need sports fields. Will he therefore remonstrate with local authorities because, under the learning communities programme, schools are merging and selling off the sports fields? That is happening in my village of Poynton, where the Vernon infants and junior schools are combining. I am in favour of the merger, but not of selling off the sports field, which is currently part of the infants school and adjacent to the junior school. Will he contact the authority to make it clear that this must not happen? We need playing fields if we are to provide more recreation, exercise and sport in schools.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are various pills around, but they have not proved to be particularly successful. The report points out that they have had varying degrees of success, but that no single medical solution is likely to come along and solve all the problems.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for team games and sports. There was a period in which it was felt in the education world that competitive sports were somehow bad for children. That is ludicrous and it should go back to whichever strange opinion former it stemmed from. It is essential to have sports, including team sports.
	School sports field are important. This year, for the first time in many years, there was a net increase in the number of sports fields opened rather than closed. The policy that we introduced insists that no school can get rid of a sports field without the express permission of the Secretary of State, and only then if the money received for it is going to be reinvested into sport, fitness and education. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that policy, as he will welcome our extra £1 billion investment in sport.

Andy Reed: As my right hon. Friend knows, I take a great interest in increasing the level of physical activity in response to obesity. Building on what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has just said, will my right hon. Friend commit to ensuring that the single delivery system for sport, physical education and activity across the country—the county sport partnerships and others—becomes more heavily involved with primary care trusts? I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to visit Leicestershire county sports partnership, which I chair, as one example where the local PCT is heavily involved in our activity.
	Will my right hon. Friend also work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to define clearly the roles of Sport England and the Department of Health? There are some difficulties, of which the attitude to walking is a good example. It is a great way of getting people to start to take up physical activity and then move into sport. That was demonstrated last week when it was found that 40 per cent. of people taking up sport in north-west Leicestershire did so as a consequence of walking. Will the Secretary of State try to bring those two elements together and clearly define who takes responsibility for which part of the governmental programme? That is crucial to delivering the first steps in tackling adult obesity. We can tackle child obesity if we get school sport right.

Alan Johnson: The answer to my hon. Friend is a very simple yes. What he says is crucial and the talks with the DCMS have already started. My hon. Friend has made an enormous contribution to sport in this country and I believe that he can make an important contribution to the work that is now under way. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister for sport, the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and the Minister for public health are working closely together. The new cross-Government initiative will involve everyone in government. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) has a very important role to play, and we will be in touch.

David Chaytor: I find it a bit odd that the shadow Secretary of State criticised the Government for abandoning and relaxing targets when, only an hour ago, that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition called on the Prime Minister to do. On the question of the futility of isolated initiatives, my right hon. Friend has accepted the need for an integrated approach in central Government, but does he also accept that, in reality, it is at local authority level that the integration will have to take place? Only the local authority and the children's trusts can seriously integrate and influence health, schools, leisure, youth services, land use planning and transport planning. Does he agree that this will be a real test of the Government's commitment to ending simple top-down government and to decentralising more? Will it not also be a real test of the ability of children's trusts to deliver and, indeed, of the commitment to achieving all five outcomes in the "Every Child Matters" agenda?

Alan Johnson: I do agree with my hon. Friend. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the report yet, but the Foresight group says precisely what he has said—that it is at local government level, where initiatives in Finland and other parts of the world have been hugely successful, that we can establish what could be described as an embryonic facility to test measures that may well be necessary throughout the country.
	The group also makes the point that planning is central, especially local authority planning. Cities must be planned on a particular basis. They should not be like Los Angeles, where people take the car to buy a pint of milk. We should look towards 2050 and the world beyond, and plan for that world now. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for public health and others are in touch with the Local Government Association to talk through the issue and try to identify areas—Bury might be one of them—where we can try out some of this integrated work at local level.

David Tredinnick: Is not the dismal truth that the problem has occurred on this Government's 10-year watch? As much as anything, it is about a failure to inform effectively.
	Does the Secretary of State agree with Peter Hollins, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation? He says that the report
	"is hardly a wake-up call. Repeated reports like this... should have had alarm bells ringing in Whitehall long ago".
	Is it not clear that we must now consider not just the level of calories, but the degree to which food is processed? Will the Secretary of State take that into account when he considers labelling?
	Finally, what advice is the Secretary of State taking from the United States, which has an even larger problem than we have? Will he examine that problem very carefully?

Alan Johnson: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not blame earlier Governments. The Foresight report looks back at many, many years. A useful section considers the approach to smoking over the years and notes that although there has been a big public health success in that regard under Governments of different persuasions, it was preceded by a long route that began in the early 1960s with information, proceeded to more intervention, and concluded with regulation providing for smoke-free areas. It would not have been possible to implement such regulation back in the 1960s: there would have been public outrage. The Foresight group's point is that obesity is a long-term issue which has not arisen under any particular Government's watch. Indeed, it is a global problem.
	I was disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's quotation from the British Heart Foundation—it may have been taken out of context—because the report adopts the most comprehensive approach possible. Scientists have examined the matter scientifically. I did not have a chance to reply to a question from the shadow Secretary of State, who asked whether we would put together a team of experts or something of the kind—

Andrew Lansley: A research centre.

Alan Johnson: We plan to keep the same team together to work on the project, although I do not know whether the building in which they are housed will be called a research centre.
	The way in which food is processed is central. We can learn lessons from the United States, which does indeed have a far greater problem, although we will soon have as great a problem here if we do not do something about it. My right hon. Friend the Minister will talk to her opposite numbers in the United States during her visit, which will take place shortly.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Secretary of State stress the importance of personal responsibility to the campaign? Information about diet, nutrition and the importance of exercise is available wherever we turn, and it is difficult to understand how the message has not already reached everyone in the country. No adult in this country is force-fed, and adults must take responsibility for what they choose to eat, but parents must take responsibility for what their children eat. They cannot transfer the responsibility to schools. Our schools are doing a very good job with the meals and exercise that they provide, but parents can give their children exercise in the form of sporting activities at the weekend, and they must take responsibility for that.
	If the campaign is to succeed, we cannot constantly provide excuses for people. Obesity is not the fault of Government, the advertising industry, the food industry, schools or the health service. People must take personal responsibility.

Alan Johnson: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady on one very important point. The Foresight report says that this is not just a question of individual responsibility, although it does not suggest that it is not an element. What the authors want to tackle is the view that the problem is merely about people who eat too much, and has nothing to do with the way in which society is organised. They point out that because our biology has not kept pace with technological advances, the amount of energy that we take in is not matched by the amount that we expend. That is an important point, particularly because obesity gives rise to bullying, which affects youngsters in this position.
	The hon. Lady is, however, absolutely right about the amount of information that is available. What we must ask is why, if all that information is there, people are not acting on it. She is also right about the need for parental responsibility. The fact that mothers were passing fish and chips through the railings at that school in Yorkshire is thoroughly depressing. Ensuring that youngsters become used to a healthy diet from a young age depends on their having that healthy diet at home as well. There is a two-way education process, involving parents as well as others. I think that the hon. Lady's question, which will be encapsulated in  Hansard, is the very first important contribution to the debate.

Jeremy Wright: May I pursue what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)? Does the Secretary of State accept that one reason why children eat more fast food and ready meals than they should is the increasing time pressure on ever busier parents? If he does accept that, what steps will the Government take to implement flexible working and other family-friendly policies so that parents can go home and cook more wholesome food for their children?

Alan Johnson: That is precisely why I personally took legislation through the House introducing the right to request flexible working, which at the time was attacked by the trade unions because it did not give a right to demand flexible working, and by some, although not all, sectors of business on the grounds that it imposed a burden on business. In fact, it has been remarkably successful: 80 per cent. of requests are accepted without the need for any process, while a further 10 per cent. are accepted following discussion about how more flexible working can be accommodated.
	The first six months of a child's life are crucial. The report mentions breastfeeding in that context. Paid maternity leave has been increased to 26 weeks and more recently to nine months, and eventually it will be increased to a year. Men now have paid paternity leave. All that is essential to the debate. The hon. Gentleman ought to look at the record. I do not want to make a political point, but I will in the sense of reminding him that the Conservative party opposed those proposals.
	We need to expand that flexibility. We have already extended it to carers, but I believe that we should now extend the right to request flexible working much more widely, perhaps as part of the debate on obesity.

Julie Kirkbride: I was heartened by the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). He appeared to downgrade the role of personal responsibility in his statement when he said, "In the past, tackling obesity has always been regarded as a matter of personal will-power". Is it not clear that we all learn and that we do not need a red light on a packet of crisps to tell us that they are fattening? There is no reason why we should not have the occasional packet of crisps, but if a parent gives a child a packet of crisps at breakfast, morning break, lunch, tea and supper, the child will clearly have an obesity problem. Is the Secretary of State perhaps a little nervous of making it clearer to the public that it is first and foremost up to them, not Governments, to change their personal behaviour?

Alan Johnson: We are trying to make clear the role of personal responsibility. The report speaks of an obesogenic environment, suggesting that modern life and the way in which the world now works make people fat, and that that must be tackled on a much wider basis than individual personal responsibility.
	I am sorry if I downplayed personal responsibility. I am merely drawing attention to the report's observation that in the past, when Governments wanted to tread on this territory, the first response was always "nanny state" and the second was that it was up to individuals to deal with the problem. According to the report, if Governments proceed along those lines, the issue will never be tackled successfully. Personal and parental responsibility are an essential part of tackling it, but there is a much wider issue that must be addressed by all elements of society, with Government taking the lead.

Philip Davies: As someone who used to work in marketing for a supermarket chain, may I tell the Secretary of State that proposals to ban so-called junk food advertising on television and to introduce a state labelling system will not make any difference to childhood obesity? They will simply be another triumph for the nanny state. May I suggest that he stops those measures that make it sound as though the Government are doing something but that will make no difference whatever, and instead promote the individual responsibility line outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)?

Alan Johnson: It is not either/or, and individual responsibility alone will not work. If the hon. Gentleman has a chance to read the report, which was written by eminent scientists, he will see that it makes it clear that food labelling and advertising form a crucial part of tackling the problem. In my view, the reason why advertising restrictions should go much further is that about 70 per cent. of children watch television programmes outside the traditional children's viewing times. I think that that is making a big contribution and will make a bigger contribution, but it is just part of the answer. The hon. Gentleman says that it is either/or, but that does not take us any further forward in the debate.

Robert Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that many hard-working local general practitioners have been trying to run programmes to tackle obesity in their local areas for many years? In fact, my local GP, Dr. Andrew Brewster, who is an excellent GP, recognised the problem some years ago and developed an innovative and successful programme in my area. However, the big problem was that he could not get the funding from the NHS or the primary care trusts to run the programme, so he had to get the money from drugs companies. Does the Secretary of State agree that, for real change to happen, local GPs must be properly funded and supported to tackle obesity?

Alan Johnson: The GP the hon. Gentleman mentions could make a contribution to the debate. Of course primary care is essential to tackling the problem. I am not sure when the GP had problems with funding. An enormous amount of funding is going to GPs—indeed, we are often criticised for too much funding going to GPs, so I will be surprised if there is a problem at the moment in accessing money.
	The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that GPs and primary care have as big a responsibility for prevention of disease as they do for tackling it. That is why we announced that there would be 100 new GP practices in the 25 per cent. poorest areas and 150 GP-led health centres around the country. As well as providing greater access, they will all have a responsibility on prevention as well as cure. I am sure that the GP the hon. Gentleman mentions would welcome that. It seems that he has been doing that work for many years. We want to see that replicated throughout the country.

Points of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that at 9.30 this morning there was a very important Westminster Hall debate on a subject close to the heart of the Labour left wing and the Liberal Democrat party in particular, namely, arms exports. For the first time in such a debate that I can recall, there was no Front-Bench spokesman present from the Liberal Democrat party and, needless to say, there was no Back Bencher either. Given that the Liberal Democrats persistently like to style their Front-Bench spokesmen as shadow Secretaries of State, will you clarify once and for all that they are no such thing and that, therefore, if they wish to continue absenting themselves from debates, it will be welcomed by Government and Opposition alike?

Mr. Speaker: I am certainly not going to get drawn into that one.

Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only a gentle point of order, but I wonder whether you have had a chance to look at the packaging material involved in the announcement that the Secretary of State for Health has just made. At a time when we are all trying to cut down on wasteful packaging, is it sensible to have the document in a half-empty box, in which a lot of junk food could probably be accommodated? Is not obese packaging the last thing we need?

Mr. Speaker: Once again, those matters have nothing to do with the Chair.

BILL PRESENTED

Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception)

Adam Price, supported by Lynne Jones, Mr. Dai Davies, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, David Taylor, Dr. Richard Taylor, Mr. Angus MacNeil, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Hywel Williams and Andrew George, presented a Bill to create offences in relation to the publication of false or misleading statements by elected representatives; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed. [Bill 162].

Access to Pension Protection Fund Benefits

Mark Hendrick: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the accessing of Pension Protection Fund benefits by people under the age of 50 who are suffering from a terminal illness; and for connected purposes.
	For nearly all of us, contributing to a pension will be the most significant financial decision we ever make. Throughout our working life until the day we die, we will either be building or receiving a pension. Contributing to a scheme provides us with security for the future. It enables us to provide essential items such as food, warmth and housing, as well as allowing us fully to participate in society, economically and socially.
	It is therefore distressing that, earlier this decade, thousands of people saw their savings vanish after their pension schemes went bust and were unable to meet their commitments. To avoid a repetition of that, the Government in April 2005 established the Pension Protection Fund under the Pensions Act 2004. Funded by an annual levy on defined-benefit and hybrid pension schemes, the PPF provides compensation to those whose pension schemes have become insolvent.
	The fund has proved to be an invaluable safety net to thousands of workers who would otherwise have lost substantial pension savings. However, as a compensation scheme, the PPF has its own set of rules, which are set out in part 2 and schedule 7 to the Pensions Act and in the numerous statutory instruments made under it. Legislation specifies the level of compensation to be provided, and that is not necessarily the same as the person would have received had the pension scheme not wound up. In short, the PPF does not mirror the rules of individual pension schemes, and it is for that reason that I am proposing the Bill.
	Significantly, the fund contrasts with final salary pension schemes and does not allow early payment of pension savings, for whatever reason, to anyone under the age of 50. For a specific set of people under 50 years of age—those diagnosed with a terminal illness—those rules are simply unreasonable. It is my belief that legislation should be amended so as to lift the current bar on payments to those aged under 50, if they are terminally ill.
	As the Incomes Data Services pensions service explains, many pension schemes will allow unreduced early payment of a pension on ill health grounds. It states:
	"In a final salary scheme, members who retire early often find that their pension is reduced to take account of the fact that it will be paid for longer. But if early retirement is due to ill health or incapacity an immediate pension is usually payable and this is unlikely to be reduced for early payment."
	A parliamentary written answer confirmed PPF rules regarding ill health pensions. It stated:
	"compensation to scheme members who have been awarded an ill health pension is calculated in the same way as compensation to any other scheme member of the same age.
	There are no provisions to enable scheme members to claim ill health pensions from the Pension Protection Fund once the PPF has assumed responsibility for a scheme.
	However, any scheme member may take early payment of their compensation at a capped level of 90 per cent. from age 50, subject to actuarial reduction."—[ Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1679W.]
	As well as provoking inevitable feelings of grief, anger and loss, having a terminal illness can be expensive, often in ways that may not have been expected. That includes the cost of prescriptions, a special diet, child care or travel to hospital. In addition, money may be needed to make adjustments to an individual's home or to pay for making out or amending a will.
	It might easily be the case that people in their 30s and 40s could have made anything between 15 and 30 years of payments into a scheme but do not qualify to receive benefits under the PPF rules, even though their original scheme would have paid out. For anyone aged under 50 and terminally ill, savings taken on by the PPF simply disappear. Only when an individual dies will payment be made to their spouse or civil partner. That situation is set to get worse in the next few years. In a fact sheet on early payment of compensation, the PPF confirms that before April 2010 the earliest age at which payment can be made will rise from 50 to 55, to comply with the Finance Act 2004.
	The PPF covers 10 former pension schemes, but many more schemes are undergoing assessment. It is estimated that by the end of 2007-08, the PPF is likely to be responsible for an additional 65 schemes. Some 100,000 employees are members of schemes currently being assessed to see if they qualify to be rescued. Among them are 38,000 former Turner and Newall employees, whose scheme failed after the engineering company went into administration in 2007.
	The Turner and Newall case provides a good example of why change to existing legislation is so necessary. That company, once the world's largest manufacturer of asbestos, ran factories in Rochdale, Washington, Widnes and Trafford Park, where many employees worked with asbestos every day. Working with asbestos can lead to asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma. Employees were never told of the dangers to their health, and hundreds have been badly affected by working with asbestos products. Sadly, it is not difficult to imagine that some might well develop a terminal illness before they reach the age of 50. If that is the case and if the PPF covers Turner and Newall's pension scheme, terminally ill employees under 50 would not be entitled to a penny of compensation. When Lord Whitty recently raised this issue in the other place—I refer Members to column 121 of the record of the House of Lords debates of 6 June 2007—the Government argued that existing legislation ensures the PPF is uncomplicated and provides greater certainty about both payment levels and the affordability of the fund.
	The financial assistance scheme makes payments to individuals diagnosed as terminally ill on provision of evidence that they are unlikely to live longer than six months. The six-months criterion is very harsh and it is extremely difficult for doctors to give any indication of precisely how long a patient might live. That period should therefore be extended to 12 months.
	It might be useful to look at the cost incurred by the FAS in paying compensation to terminally ill individuals. When I contacted the FAS recently, I was told that that information was not recorded. Similarly, the Office for National Statistics advised me that pension schemes rarely document payments to terminally ill members, as that occurs so rarely. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the cost of paying out to terminally ill claimants is somewhat modest, if it is not currently recorded for the FAS. Basic logic supports that assumption when one considers that pensions for the terminally ill are paid for a shorter period due to their reduced life expectancy. The FAS might also provide a useful model with regard to administration and process.
	In respect of eligibility, a definition of terminal illness could be based on that used by other appropriate organisations. The Association of British Insurers uses the following definition in their best practice guide to critical illness:
	"Advanced or rapidly progressing incurable illness where, in the opinion of an attending Consultant and our Chief Medical Officer, the life expectancy is no greater than 12 months."
	Appeals against decisions could be referred to the PPF ombudsman, as is currently the practice for eligibility appeals. Of course, the precise definition of eligibility can be discussed and drawn up with the PPF board. The important point is that ill health benefits are allowed to be paid, which can only be enabled once existing legislation is amended.
	The experience of the FAS and the lack of data held regarding terminal illness and pension schemes suggest that the PPF will not be inundated with requests for early payment based on ill health. That, together with the relative ease of determining an individual's state of health via medical certification, suggests that the task of assessing and processing the extra applications would not be excessively burdensome.
	The proposed change is relatively modest. The Pensions Act 2004 should be amended, and individuals who are certified as terminally ill and aged under 50 should be allowed to access their savings as they would have done had their scheme not gone bust. In order not to provide too broad a provision, it could be restricted by reference to the discretion of the PPF board. This modest amendment would be of enormous significance to individuals in their last precious days. I ask the Government to consider extending the safety net to those who would draw immense comfort from it.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Hendrick, Mrs. Janet Dean, Barbara Keeley, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Elliot Morley, Jim Dowd, Lynda Waltho, Mr. John Heppell, Tom Levitt, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Neil Gerrard and John Mann.

Access to Pension Protection Fund Benefits

Mr. Mark Hendrick accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the accessing of Pension Protection Fund benefits by people under the age of 50 who are suffering from a terminal illness; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 162].

Richard Benyon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I secured a debate in Westminster Hall on defence exports, and many of my hon. Friends joined me in attending it in order to try to hold the Government to account on an important decision that has been taken and which concerns the Ministry of Defence. The Government sent along, however, a Minister from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, who did not appear to know anything about the subject. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, how Members are to hold this Government to account on such an important issue when they send along a Minister from a different Department?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is, of course, entirely up to the Government to decide which Minister attends any debate in this House. At the end of day, any Minister is still a Minister within the Government and has responsibility.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[20th Allotted Day—First Part]

Foot and Mouth/Bluetongue

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to the main business: the Opposition day. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

James Paice: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the swift action taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to impose movement controls when foot and mouth was first confirmed on 3rd August, in contrast to the Government's failures in 2001; is alarmed that the outbreak originated from a laboratory site financed, licensed and inspected by the Government; notes that warnings about the inadequacies of the facilities at Pirbright were ignored; condemns this negligent approach to biosecurity; urges the Government to accept its responsibility for the situation facing farmers caused by the subsequent controls which for many has been compounded by the outbreak of bluetongue disease; and demands that the regulatory body for facilities using dangerous pathogens should be fully independent of the facilities' major customers.
	I remind the House of my interest declared in the register.
	For those of us who were involved in the catastrophe of 2001, the news on 3 August of another foot and mouth outbreak was a body blow. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he was open and helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), myself and affected colleagues. He gave us access to his vets, and he and the Minister for the South East kept us informed. We are genuinely grateful for that collaboration. One should also point out that much of what happened predated the Secretary of State's appointment, but as is so often the case on such occasions, he was the unfortunate person left holding the parcel when the music stopped. I also acknowledge the swift action that was taken to clamp down on the disease by banning animal movements—a welcome contrast to the costly delays of 2001.
	Early on Saturday 4 August, a farmer telephoned me and pointed out that the outbreak was near Pirbright. My immediate reaction was, "So what? That's just a coincidence." How wrong I was. Nobody realised then that this had been a disaster waiting to happen for five years and that the trail of incompetence led all the way to Downing street. As far back as 2002, an Institute for Animal Health review, commissioned by its owners the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, stated:
	"Some of the laboratories are not close to the standard that would be expected in a modern biomedical facility."
	We also know from the Spratt report that from 2003 there had been concern
	"that pipes were old and needed replacing, but after much discussion between the Institute, Merial and DEFRA, money had not been made available."
	The report also contains a letter from Merial dated 20 July 2004 setting out specifications for improvements to the drainage and referring to an unspecified quote for the work. The reply from DEFRA simply stated that the proposals would appear to meet DEFRA standards for the safe transfer of the waste. That letter was dated 2 August 2004. Yet last week the Secretary of State told the House that
	"until the state of the drains was drawn to our attention, and everybody else's, as a result of the HSE investigation, nobody thought that they were in such a condition. That happens to be the truth."—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
	As there is now incontrovertible evidence that DEFRA knew about the state of the drains as far back as 2004, will the Secretary of State explain how he can claim that it did not know until September 2007?
	In Spratt's final remarks, he says:
	"There was evidence of a lack of urgency and ownership of risk at all levels, resulting in the failure to take appropriate decisions on the funding for essential improvements in safety critical infrastructure. This was particularly documented in the series of letters and reports from the biological safety officer of the Institute in his attempts over four years to get agreement on funding for the replacement of the effluent pipes."
	Spratt also made it clear that DEFRA inspectors had confirmed that the drainage system was part of the category 4 containment system. He said that the pipes were old and appeared not to have been subject to regular, thorough inspection. Even during the past 18 months, there had been two incidents—both reported to DEFRA—where virus was released into the public sewer. So we have a catalogue of reports, recommendations and pleas for help regarding the drainage system. The Secretary of State cannot claim that DEFRA did not know. Some people certainly did, and the House should be told who they are.
	However, it does not stop there. We find that in the years following 2002—with just one exception—DEFRA cut funding to the institute. As Spratt said, money had not been available. In January this year, the director of the institute told Radio 4:
	"We are trying to deliver a Rolls-Royce service for surveillance in the UK but really we're being funded more and more at the level of a Ford Cortina. Essentially, we are flying by the seat of our pants."
	Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the vehicles were on the site
	"because work is under way to spend the money on renewing the facilities at Pirbright. Some £31 million of that money has already been spent".—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
	Yes, £31 million, out of a Pirbright redevelopment scheme fund totalling £121 million, is indeed a lot of money, but it is not actually relevant. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey, the Minister for Science and Innovation said:
	"Tenders for the drainage scheme of around £220,000 were received in October 2006."—[ Official Report, 1 October 2007; Vol. 463, c. 2346W.]
	That work was approved in March and commenced in July. On 5 September, inspectors confirmed that the work had been completed. I quote:
	"The institute has already completed relining of the effluent pipes with a polyester lining, blocked off disused drains and sealed the manholes."
	So for £220,000 and six weeks' work, the disaster to the British farming industry could have been avoided.
	However, DEFRA has another role. Under the specified animal pathogens order, it has to license such facilities. That includes meeting its own containment requirements, which the health and safety report clearly states were not met. Yet in December 2006, DEFRA inspected Pirbright, and according to Spratt,
	"some issues relating to bio security were identified".
	I remind the Secretary of State of Spratt's statement that the pipes did not appear to have been subject to regular, thorough inspection.
	So why will the Government not publish that report? Is it because it is clear that the licence should not have been renewed? It seems odd that, despite the drains having been repaired, the licence is now suspended. Talk about closing the stable door after the cow has been shot! Are we really facing a foot and mouth outbreak for the second time in seven years because a facility had been licensed by DEFRA that should not have been? What is really hypocritical is that, if this had been a dairy farm or a shop selling food, it would have been prevented immediately from continuing in business until the problems were put right.
	We know that DEFRA knew about the state of the drains four or five years ago. We know that it failed to fund the improvements—indeed, it cut the funding. Despite that, it went ahead and continued to license facilities that were rotten. It has cost the taxpayer well over £20 million, and rising. It has cost the English farming industry at least £100 million, and rising, and for Scottish and Welsh farmers the situation is just as serious. The potential damage, especially to our uplands, could be devastating.
	What farmers need to know is, who is going to pay the price. When will somebody in DEFRA be accountable for this latest fiasco? Who will ultimately carry the can? Will it be the Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, cut the funding? Will it be the various Secretaries of State who ignored the warnings? Will it be the institute, or some inspector? No, we know that, as always with this Government, it will never be their fault. It is never their responsibility. Never resign, blame somebody else—that is the culture. The can, of course, is being carried—by the poor farmers up and down the country who cannot sell their stock, buy new stock, pay their bills or see a positive future. Already, farmers are deciding to quit the industry. They can take the weather; they can take decoupling; they can even take the vagaries of the marketplace, but they cannot—and nor should they—take the negligence of an incompetent Government.

David Drew: We all know that this is a dreadful situation—as, indeed, a number of other animal disease outbreaks have been. However, will the hon. Gentleman, to be fair, acknowledge that this Government have spent a great deal of money on research into vaccination? Let us consider the example of tuberculosis, into which we had a number of inquiries.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but is he aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee is looking into the money that this Government are spending internationally on this issue? Of course the Tories do not want to know—they do not spend any money.

James Paice: I am very willing to engage the hon. Gentleman and anybody else on the subject of the incompetent way in which this Government have handled the tuberculosis business, as well, but that is not the issue facing us today.

David Heath: Perhaps I might return the hon. Gentleman to foot and mouth, which is the worry for most of my farmers. Does he share my concern and that of many people in Somerset that infected carcases are being taken from the area of the foot and mouth outbreak and into my constituency—into the heart of dairying country—for disposal? Does he agree with me that that is an unnecessary and avoidable risk?

James Paice: Any risk is worrying, and I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which has been expressed by many others. I hope that the Secretary of State will address that issue when he responds.

Daniel Kawczynski: I listened to the Secretary of State address the House last Monday on the issue of the pipes in Pirbright. I remember that he said categorically that, although it was possible that pipes were faulty, it could not be guaranteed that that was the cause. Given the evidence that my hon. Friend has presented to the House today, does he agree that the Secretary of State must acknowledge that fact today, for the record?

David Drew: Read the reports.

James Paice: Anybody who has read the Spratt and the Health and Safety Executive reports will have come to the conclusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has reached. It is stated clearly that that is by far the most likely cause; no other substantive alternative cause of infection is ventured. I can well understand why the Secretary of State does not want to admit that. I am sure that thousands of lawyers are on his shoulder, pressing him not to do or say anything that could be construed as accepting responsibility. However, I do not think that there is any doubt about how the situation was caused.

Richard Benyon: As a dairy farmer close to the exclusion zone, I must refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. The Institute for Animal Health, at Compton, is in my constituency, so a lot of scientists—past and present—live there. There is great anger among them at the fact that the Government are ignoring the way in which they go about their business, which is world renowned. They believe that the Government just want to dip in and out of the science and get a quick-fix solution. The actual solution is to look at the whole biology of these pathogens, but the scientists are prevented from doing so by the manner of their funding.

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. As I pointed out earlier, the director of the institute said that he is funded to run a Ford Cortina, when in fact, he is trying to run a Rolls-Royce service. That entirely sums up and fits with what my hon. Friend has just said.
	So far, I have addressed the causes of this outbreak; let me turn now to the handling of it. The initial decisions were right, but there have been a number of problems in the detail. There was a desperate lack of communication. Farmers near the initial outbreak were wondering what was happening for days and days before they were contacted.

Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem that DEFRA has, and which Whitehall has more generally, is assuming that everybody is connected to the internet? We may have to be, but a lot of my farming friends are not and are simply left in the dark.

James Paice: My next sentence was going to be, and will be, that DEFRA appeared to assume that every farmer spent their whole time studying the internet; I have obviously known my hon. Friend too long, or he has known me too long.
	There was also confusion about footpath closures: whether to close them, and whether or not they were closed. There was no contingency plan to deal with casualty and dead animals at the hottest time of the year. Later, during the second cluster, we heard of different policies in different places: cattle killed on one farm, but not the sheep; goats being missed between adjoining slaughtered flocks; and, worst of all, the shooting of cattle from helicopters because they had broken out of a pen in the evening.
	That raises the issue of why the country was declared free of foot and mouth only for further outbreaks to occur just days later. Last week, the Secretary of State said that infected premises 5 had had the disease for
	"three or possibly four weeks".—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 48.]
	However, he said that he was not pointing the finger at anyone. Is that because of statements by the owner of premises 5 that DEFRA inspectors had been on the farm and missed the disease? Is it because by 20 September it was clear that this was linked to outbreak 1 and that it should have been followed up, but was not?
	The Secretary of State cannot say that DEFRA emerges with credit from the handling of this outbreak. There is no getting away from the fact that it was handled better than last time, but it would have taken a superhuman effort to have done worse. The Prime Minister says that the public will judge him on what he did on foot and mouth disease. He is right that he will be judged, but it will not happen in the way that he imagines.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has been generous in taking interventions. On Saturday, I had a meeting with farmers in east Berkshire who have been affected by foot and mouth, some of whom have had their cattle slaughtered. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has also met them. In addition to the issues of lack of communication and lack of consistency, they raised a biosecurity issue to do with DEFRA's Pirbright establishment: that topsoil was being removed from around the broken drain, which was the source of the first outbreak, but DEFRA apparently has no records of where that topsoil was taken.

James Paice: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am aware of that meeting and those allegations. Many more exist, and I suspect that other colleagues will make them during this debate. To be fair, the Secretary of State has set up the Anderson committee to examine the matter. It is essential that all those issues are considered by that Committee, and that Dr. Anderson is rightly given the information to make a proper examination to see whether there was even more incompetence than we imagined.

Eric Martlew: I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. Would the Opposition have vaccinated in this situation? Why is the handling of bluetongue mentioned in the motion, because the Government have done nothing wrong in that instance?

James Paice: I am coming to bluetongue. On vaccination, we would have taken more notice of the scientist who told us that the pipes were damaged in the first place. We have made it clear that in the circumstances that have arisen, we would not have vaccinated, but that option would have been in the locker had the disease got further out of control.
	Even though the export ban has been lifted, at least notionally, and markets and movements have resumed in much of the country, the crisis in British farming is horrendous. The Secretary of State has said that returning to normal is the best solution—nobody would dissent from that—but does he believe that that is what has happened? Merely switching on exports or movement does not solve the problem. The market overhang from weeks of movement restrictions is dire. Millions of animals should have gone by now—hundreds of thousands of sheep in our hills that are eating precious forage reserved for the winter, cull ewes, light lambs and fat pigs—and all that means a calamitous fall in prices. With no live exports, bull calves are again being shot at birth. Lamb prices are up to 50 per cent. lower and those of finished pigs are also well down, while massive rises in the price of feed are having to be contended with.
	I point out to the Secretary of State that the bulk of the UK pig industry is within the zone that cannot yet export. Probably 40,000 cull sows are now on farms. They are blocking up pens, costing money and are effectively worthless. Even if they could be exported, it would take many weeks to clear the backlog. The welfare disposal scheme via the fallen stock scheme that he announced last week, should be extended to cover sows within the whole zone from which exports are banned. That could be done, and I suggest using £1 million of the £2 million that he has allocated for promoting meat consumption. Important as that is, it is no use promoting something that is wasting away.

David Heath: On pigs, has the hon. Gentleman noticed something that was brought to my attention by a small farmer from Muchelney in my constituency: the limited movement orders for pigs were available only to those producers who were in established pyramid schemes? That means that small farmers, who perhaps bought from weaner stocks in order to fatten and sell on their premises, were not able to move their pigs. Why should there be that distinction between small producers and large producers?

James Paice: As the hon. Gentleman probably realises, I am not in a position to give the answer to that question. I suspect that it might have something to do with traceability. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us about that.
	Will the Secretary of State also tell us what discussions he is having about relaxing the export controls? The huge area of the country from which exports are banned includes the abattoir that slaughters 70 per cent. of cull sows in this country. What is he doing about the 21-day rule? It is tying up farms, which, at this time of the year, are selling finished stock and normally buying new stock. That measure is in addition to the separate 20-day rule about general movements.
	Will the Secretary of State speak to the Commission about one other aspect of foot and mouth control? Will he draw the contrast between the strict rules that it has imposed in this regard and its far more lackadaisical attitude to imports from Brazil? Both measures are designed to prevent the spread of foot and mouth, yet, despite a damning report from the Irish Farmers Association about the lack of traceability, the lack of vaccines and the non-use of ear tags, the Commission equivocates about Brazilian imports. In short, the regime, be it for Britain or Brazil, should be equally tough against foot and mouth.

Paddy Tipping: I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, because he commands great respect in the House on farming issues. He has talked about the Government paying the price and about the compensation that they have announced. In fairness, he has suggested that it should be used in alternative ways. Is he suggesting that there should be a greater compensation scheme, and, if so, to what amount and paid to whom?

James Paice: If the hon. Gentleman holds fire, I shall come to that.
	I turn to bluetongue, which hit us in September. Again, the initial actions taken were correct, but it rapidly became obvious that the consequences were going to be horrendous. We were told that stock could be moved to slaughter in the control and protection zones, yet nobody in DEFRA seemed to have realised that there were not enough slaughter places to slaughter the stock. I was told by a senior civil servant, in front of Lord Rooker, that licences would not be issued to allow stock from the control zone to go to the abattoirs because of European rules, yet that is now what is happening. Countless pedigree stock—cattle and sheep for which this is the peak sale time—cannot be moved, yet in France, a combination of an insecticidal regime and blood testing is being used to allow that to happen.
	I know that bluetongue is a changing picture and that as new cases occur, problems of movement controls perversely become less of an issue. Bluetongue could be even more devastating economically to our livestock industry than foot and mouth. That is why vaccines are so crucial. Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has had with the developers of vaccines about future supplies? Why has Merial been stopped from further development, despite the drains at Pirbright having been repaired? If he is to have any chance of preventing the spread of bluetongue across central and southern England and Wales next summer, he must ensure that enough vaccine doses are available as soon as possible. If stock is not protected before next year's midge season, there is no chance of containing this disease.
	Finally, let me turn to the issue of support for the industry. Last week, the Secretary of State announced a 30 per cent. supplement for the hill farm allowance. We had already said the previous week that we would have made it 50 per cent., but the gesture is right. He spent £4 million on other measures. He then announced, as if to a fanfare, the lifting of regulatory burdens. He wanted to increase the public procurement of British meat. We agree, but by my reckoning he is at least the fourth Secretary of State to say so and still only 3 per cent. of the lamb sold to our armed forces is British.
	The Secretary of State announced a four-month delay in the requirement for hauliers to have a certificate of competence. It is a ludicrous requirement anyway and should be abolished. He announced a derogation for the amount of nitrogen to be spread on nitrate-vulnerable zones, but the crisis is now and no amount of nitrogen will make grass grow in the winter.
	Finally—and I can hardly believe this one—the Secretary of State announced a one-month extension to a consultation. I can hear the sighs of relief as the red tape burden is lifted from farmers' shoulders—I think not. That last cynical point is at the heart of the matter. For all its sins, the old Ministry of Agriculture knew that its role was to support and promote British farming. DEFRA's role is to control and regulate. There is no natural empathy with or understanding of the farming industry, and no knowledge of the structures of the industry that realises that a restriction here has a knock-on consequence there. Where are the men and women who understood those things and who realised that animals keep growing; that grass is finite; and that if one cannot export pig shoulders, the price of the whole pig collapses?
	Most importantly, where are the people who know that disease will wait for no man? It will not wait for a committee. It will not wait for the resolution of a turf war. Four years was too long to fix a drain. How many more times must this once proud and valued industry be ripped apart by an incompetent Government?

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"expresses great sympathy with farmers and the farming industry and acknowledges the difficulties they are facing as a result of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and bluetongue; recognises the work that has already been done by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Animal Health, farmers and their representative bodies and others in containing foot and mouth; agrees that the priority for the Government must be to work with the farming industry and others to support the resumption of market activity as quickly as possible; and notes the steps the Government has taken to deal with what happened at the Pirbright laboratory site."
	I welcome this opportunity for the House to debate foot and mouth and bluetongue, further to the statement that I made on Monday last week. I recognise the very real interest and concern on the part of many right hon. and hon. Members. We know that this could not have happened at a worse time of the year for the livestock industry. All livestock farmers have been affected and for many, things are very hard. I have met farmers and their representatives and they have left me in no doubt about the difficulties that the industry is facing. That is why, in responding to what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, I want to set out before the House the action that we have taken to try to deal with the two outbreaks and to assist the farmers who have been so badly affected.

Elfyn Llwyd: Why is it that the Secretary of State's speech on Friday 5 October contained details of compensation for Scotland and Wales, but on the following Monday there was no mention of compensation for anyone other than English farmers?

Hilary Benn: Well, I heard someone mutter the words "the election", but I take this opportunity to put it on the record in the House, as I have outside, that there is not a shred of truth in the allegation that any possible election had anything to do with any decisions relating to funding for foot and mouth. Colleagues have discussions and options are considered, and in the end the Government decided as I told the House in my statement on 8 October. I will return to that issue if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
	I wish to begin by addressing the comments that have been made about the Pirbright site, because that is where the foot and mouth outbreak began. As I have said before, it should not have happened, I am sorry about the great effect that it has had, and I am determined that it does not happen again.
	Following the initial confirmed case on 3 August, it became apparent—

Peter Ainsworth: Before the Secretary of State moves on to the causes, could he return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the response to my question about the drains after the statement last week? The Secretary of State said that
	"nobody thought that they were in such a condition. That happens to be the truth."—[Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
	I am struggling with that definition of the truth. We know that Merial wrote to DEFRA about the drains in 2004. We know that the then Department of Trade and Industry had commissioned tenders to repair the drains a year before. How can the Secretary of State honestly maintain that the truth is that nobody knew?

Hilary Benn: I will respond directly to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
	It became apparent the day after 3 August that the Pirbright site was the potential source of the outbreak because of the type of virus identified—01-BFS-67. That is why we commissioned the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt to lead a team of experts in reviewing biosecurity. We also took steps as the regulator to require the Institute for Animal Health and Merial to take action as concerns were raised with us by the HSE during the course of its inspection, including remedial action on the drainage system. I published both of those reports on 7 September.
	However, as the HSE report, the Spratt report and the DEFRA epidemiology reports made clear, we may never be absolutely certain as to exactly how the foot and mouth virus escaped from the Pirbright site. But the drains, the flooding and the construction work—ironically, there was construction work on the site precisely because the Government are investing a considerable amount of money in improving the facilities at Pirbright—do seem to be the most probable chain of events, and I have been clear on that from the beginning.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is a decent man, but I fear that he is avoiding answering the question that I asked—

Hilary Benn: I haven't got to it yet.

Peter Ainsworth: In that case, when he answers he might like also to deal with the point that DEFRA inspected the site in November 2003, August 2004, September 2005 and December 2006, after the work on the drains had been commissioned, and found—according to the Minister involved—no major biosecurity issues. What does that say about the competence of DEFRA's inspections?

Hilary Benn: In the Government's response to all of these reports, I accepted the recommendations that were made. They are being implemented and an improvement is planned. Since 7 September, the HSE and DEFRA have carried out further joint inspections. All of the essential work will need to be completed before IAH and Merial can resume full operations.
	I shall return to the issue of bluetongue and a potential vaccine from Merial a little later.
	We are now requiring of Merial that all the virus that it produces should be inactivated before it reaches even the first part of the drainage system. That will require a heat treatment facility and it needs to put that in place —[Interruption.] Well, that is a factual description of what is happening in response to the question about when Merial will be in a position to resume work to try to find a virus to deal with bluetongue. We need to be satisfied that that has been done before it can resume its full operations.
	I shall deal directly with the charge by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that warnings about conditions at the facility had been ignored. The first point that I want to make is that the IAH has been inspected, as part of its Specified Animal Pathogens Order—SAPO—licence, on a regular basis under the arrangements that were set up in the early 1990s. The institute was required to take action as a result of those inspections and submit reports on progress. However, at no point was it the view of the inspectors that the IAH was unsafe in its operations.
	On the issue of the drains, DEFRA—as the regulator—was indeed consulted about plans for their replacement, but we were not aware that they were leaking. That is a very important point. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone else. No scientist who I know of has said that the drains were damaged. If the hon. Gentleman can draw my attention to any scientist who did say that, I would be very interested, because that is what he claimed. As soon as we became aware of the damage—in August, as a result of the HSE's work—action was taken.
	It is not the case that live virus was released into the public drainage system, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested in his remarks. There is no evidence of that at all. So that the House understands, let me say that the Pirbright site has a two-stage process to ensure that all virus is completely inactivated before it goes into the public drainage system. The IAH and Merial had their own separate arrangements, which then fed into a shared pipe, and a second-stage belt-and-braces treatment process took place to deal with any effluent before it went into the public drainage system.
	Why had a discussion taken place about the replacement of the drains? It had occurred because they were old, and because of concern about their capacity and about surface water potentially coming into the system, but not because of concern that the drains were leaking. As Professor Spratt makes clear in his report, safety depends not on the age of the facility but on the procedures carried out.
	As regulator, DEFRA was consulted about the specification for the replacement of the drains; we were not asked for funding to replace the drains, and nor would we have been. As I said to the House last week, one would not ask the regulator for money to improve or replace one's facilities, any more than a factory that was inspected and found not to be up to scratch would ask the HSE to give it some money to improve its facilities.
	The Government accepted the findings of the reports of Professor Gull in 2002 and Dr. Cawthorne in 2003 about the need to upgrade the facilities at Pirbright. Following the development of a costed proposal, the Government decided in 2005 to invest £121 million in new facilities at Pirbright, which, it should be acknowledged, is fundamentally important to our fight against animal diseases throughout the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of that money, £31 million has already been spent on the site. With respect, therefore, nobody can credibly argue that a lack of funding to be spent in Pirbright was the problem.
	Had the drains been thought to be the overwhelming priority for action on the site, no doubt some of that £31 million would have been used to replace them, but that was not the case. I accept that that raises a question about prioritisation: if people felt that that was the priority, why was that not a factor in decisions about the £31 million expenditure? I agree that the issue needs to be examined. That is the reason why the second review that I have set up—I shall come to the other one in a moment—which the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council will carry out into IAH, will look at funding, governance and risk management.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Secretary of State is putting a robust case, but is he telling the House that there will be no resignations at all in his Department as a result of this fiasco, which could have cost our country billions of pounds?  [Interruption.] It is a shame that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is shouting across the Chamber. This has been a disaster for our country, and the Opposition expect some resignations over the matter.

Hilary Benn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. There have been no resignations, and there will be none. I will tell him who takes responsibility: I take responsibility. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, I happen to be the current Secretary of State. As I have done throughout, I am trying to set out for the House the steps that I have taken, accepting that responsibility, to put right what has gone wrong. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is a reasonable man, will accept that the whole system of regulation for protecting against risk—whatever we are discussing—has evolved over time, and that one of the most important factors in determining how systems are changed and improved is learning from mistakes. Things did not go right, and I am determined that we learn from the mistake.

David Drew: Unfortunately, some of us have acquired a lot of expertise in drains over the past couple of months. Following the episodes in the summer, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider new arrangements at a range of different sites, including establishments such as Berkeley in my constituency—a former nuclear station—given the likely threat of floods hitting us again in future? Will he assure me that not only biosecurity but structural measures will be increased to ensure that such episodes do not threaten us time after time?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. In accepting the recommendations of the HSE and Spratt reports, we have issued an advice note to all the institutions handling both animal and human category 3 and 4 pathogens, which will be followed up by a series of inspections. In relation to flooding, a lessons-learned review is being undertaken by Sir Michael Pitt. When such things happen, what do most people want? I accept that some people want a head on a stick, but the most useful and important response is to learn the lessons, make sure that there is not a recurrence and put a better system in place. I am determined to do that.

Angela Browning: In the light of the Secretary of State's comments, will he take a serious look at the arrangements in this country for meat composting, which open up a risk of not only foot and mouth but swine fever, avian flu and a range of diseases? Will he consider in particular the fact that the process is allowed on livestock premises, because farmers in my constituency are asking that it be confined only to industrial premises?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to consider the issue raised by the hon. Lady. If I may, I shall respond directly to her, if that would be helpful.

David Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable and decent man and comes to the problem with fresh hands as a new Secretary of State. Hypothetically, if he had been Secretary of State presiding over such matters for the past five years, would he have resigned?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that hypothetical question to me. All that I can say is that I was otherwise engaged during those five years, as I am now engaged in the task that has fallen to me. I shall exercise my responsibilities to the best of my ability.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hilary Benn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and then to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and then I would like to make progress, as I know that many Members wish to speak.

David Jones: The Secretary of State has dealt at length with the question of the degree of knowledge or otherwise of those managing and regulating the Pirbright establishment of the defects in the drains. But does he not accept that, irrespective of the degree of knowledge, those who manage and regulate any establishment that is built to contain, and does contain, a substance that is inherently dangerous—and that will cause great damage if it is allowed to escape into the environment—must per se be liable for whatever damage is caused?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who regulate and license, and those who have the responsibility, in this case the IAH, of ensuring that the terms of the licence are adhered to—that is an important distinction, and together those provide the appropriate safeguard—have a responsibility. But I have seen no evidence that anybody acted negligently, and that is why I responded to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire as I did previously. It is clear, however, that things did not go right, and that is why we have taken steps to put them right. I shall deal with another part of that action in a moment.

James Paice: The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that, despite what I have stated, there is no evidence that DEFRA knew that the drains were in such a bad state of repair. Contrary to what he said, I am sure that I did not use the word "damaged", and never meant to suggest that —[Interruption.] Actually, if one reads the full Spratt report, the drains were damaged by tree roots. But given that the Spratt and HSE reports both indicate the dire state of those drains and prior flooding incidents, does not the Secretary of State find it odd, as an objective and sensible man, that at no stage during all the exchanges of correspondence—taking into account Spratt's comment that the drains did not look as if they had been thoroughly inspected—did anybody in DEFRA ask what the drains were like, why there was a desire to replace them, whether it was urgent, whether it should be done quickly or why an inspector had not opened a manhole and stuck his head down? It defies belief that that could have gone on without anyone asking those fundamental questions.

Hilary Benn: We will both be able to check  Hansard to find out whether the hon. Gentleman used the word "damage". However, the point is important because the description of what went on that I am putting before the House rests importantly on the fact that, because of the combination of events that had taken place, nobody knew that the drains were in the condition that it turned out they were in by the time the HSE investigated them in April.  [Interruption.] The letter from 2004 was about replacing the drains because people recognised that they were old. However, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will not find in that correspondence people saying, "And by the way, we think the drains are leaking."
	The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, which I want to come to, about the nature of the inspection regime. I grant him his point about what kind of inspection of category 3 and 4 containment systems should take place. The steps that we have now taken, and the requirement that we are putting on Merial to ensure that all the virus that it puts into the system is inactivated before it gets to that bit of now-lined drainage, raise the question of what the arrangements for inspecting category 3 and 4 pathogen handling laboratories should be.
	For that reason, there is an issue about the respective roles of the regulator, the funder and the customer; Professor Spratt made a recommendation on that. That is why on 7 September I announced that Sir Bill Callaghan was to carry out a review of the regulatory framework governing the handling of category 3 and category 4 animal pathogens. He has now started, and he will report before the end of the year.
	DEFRA is both the regulator for the 1998 order and a customer for the important services, including diagnostics and research on foot and mouth and bluetongue, provided by the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright. As I have already said, with hindsight my view is that that arrangement is not satisfactory. The Callaghan review will consider what the right arrangement to replace it should be. That is another instance of the Government's determination to learn from what has happened.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Hilary Benn: I shall give way, but then I shall make some further progress.

Bernard Jenkin: I feel that I must take the Secretary of State back. The House is entitled to an answer to the question of whose responsibility it was to know the condition of those drains. In all honesty, it is not good enough for the House to be effectively told that it was an accident and that nobody was responsible for knowing their condition.

Hilary Benn: Under the 1998 order, the responsibility is for the licensor and regulator to specify the outcome that has to be met; that is the purpose of licensing and regulation. It is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that those requirements are met.
	All the people involved in the work—and the people at the IAH and the inspectors who work for DEFRA are conscious and dutiful—did what they thought was right in the circumstances. Nobody thought, and this is the point, that the drains were leaking in that way. There was a confluence of events—a not-completely-inactivated virus coming into the system, heavy rainfall, a rising water table, a bringing to the surface and traffic because of the building work. The HSE review and the Spratt report say that that is the most credible explanation. The point that I am making to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is that we learn from such experiences. It is fair to ask whether we should have a system in which pipework that is part of a critical system gets inspected. I accept that point.
	I turn to the handling of the outbreak. I thank the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for his comments on the swift and effective action that DEFRA, the animal health authorities and partners in the industry have taken in trying to control the problem. Our contingency plan recognised the lessons of 2001. I hope that the House will feel that how we have responded to the outbreak this time around shows how we have applied that knowledge. Our priority, of course, has been to contain and then eradicate foot and mouth. That is why the national movement ban was brought in straight away on the evening of 3 August, a decision also taken at the same time by the devolved Administrations. We have carried out extensive surveillance, which, in the second phase of the outbreak, has gone beyond the European requirements by inspecting and testing animals. We are now 75 days into this outbreak. We have had only eight cases, all in Surrey. We want to keep it that way so that we can control and eradicate the disease.

Theresa May: It may seem a small point, but the Government have consistently said that the second outbreak has been only in Surrey. That is not the case. Farmers in Berkshire have also had foot and mouth outbreaks and cattle stock there has been culled as a result. Will the Government please say "Surrey and Berkshire"?

Hilary Benn: I am duly chided by the right hon. Lady.

Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State has been extremely generous in giving way.
	One matter is troubling me. He says that the institute is not liable for the costs of the damage because nobody was negligent. However, as I understand it, the general proposition is that if a landowner has potentially dangerous material on site and it escapes, the landowner is responsible for the consequences. One obvious example of that is in respect of domestic animals. The Secretary of State knows well that if a horse escapes from a site, the relevant landowner will be responsible even in the absence of negligence. Indeed, the Secretary of State's own Department is considering changing the law to address that point. I do not understand how liability can be avoided, given that the virus escaped from a Government institution.

Hilary Benn: I said that I had seen no evidence of negligence, but I did not advance an argument about what liabilities might arise from what has happened. I am not a lawyer; others are much better qualified to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument and take a decision about whether they want to use that remedy.

Ian Davidson: rose—

Hilary Benn: No; I shall make progress now, as I have been generous in giving way.
	I shall come to bluetongue in a moment. On vaccination for foot and mouth disease, in both phases of the outbreak we had organised and were ready to vaccinate if necessary. In the event, we decided that it was not—a view shared by the chief veterinary officer and independent scientific advice. We have worked with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to take decisions about disease control, when possible on a co-ordinated basis. After all, the industry is inter-dependent in its activities in different parts of Great Britain, although we recognise that animal health is a devolved matter. We have worked with representatives of the industry to circulate information about the controls, through information packs, text message alerts and information on the DEFRA website. I acknowledge that not all farmers have access to the internet, but a lot of effort has been put into getting information to farmers. We have worked with the National Farmers Union to do so, and to try to identify and reduce the very real economic and welfare pressures faced by farmers. That is why we have taken a risk-based approach to lifting movement restrictions.
	Clearly, the emergence of the third case on 12 September—more than a month and a bit after the previous reported case—made things much more difficult. We now know that that was the result of unreported infection in one premises.  [Interruption.] Yes, they were visited, but as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will know because of his expert knowledge, it is difficult to detect old disease. It was picked up because of blood sampling of sheep, and that reinforces the point that farmers are the first line of defence in defeating the disease.
	As a result of the case, controls had to be reimposed. Farm-to-farm movement resumed on 23 September. Markets reopened at the beginning of this month, and last Friday meat product exports from Scotland, Wales and the low-risk area of England were able to resume. That is an important step forward. We are also working with the European Commission to try to decrease the restrictions on exports, and to increase the areas of the country from which exports can be made. The next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health will be on Friday.
	The 20-day rule relates to domestic controls on animal standstills. As of today, that is now six days for areas outside the FMD risk area. The 21-day rule is an EU export rule, and means that animals cannot be moved on to a premises in the preceding 21 days. To change that, we would need to persuade Europe to do things differently.

Simon Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Angus MacNeil: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hilary Benn: I will give way to both hon. Members.

Simon Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Bluetongue was discovered in my constituency on Monday, and I am very grateful to members of his Department for the way that they notified me of that and for their subsequent handling of my queries about the matter. In respect of controls for FMD and bluetongue, is the Secretary of State prepared to look again at how his Department is sorting out boundaries, given the knock-on effects for other farmers in the areas concerned?

Hilary Benn: I am indeed. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I shall respond directly to it when I turn to dealing with bluetongue, which I am anxious to do in a moment.

Angus MacNeil: The Secretary of State has said that FMD has not escaped beyond the confines of Surrey and Berkshire, but the UK is divided into two epidemiological zones—Great Britain, and Northern Ireland. Given the pattern of the spread of the disease this time, does he think that other epidemiological zones should be established within Great Britain? That is the arrangement in the continent of Europe's land mass.

Hilary Benn: There is always a case for using the light of experience to reconsider whether decisions about such zones should be changed. In this outbreak, we have created areas of high and low risk, with the result that we have helped to pave the way to persuading the EU to allow a resumption of meat product exports. I have listened to many representations on this matter, and my judgment was that that was one of the most important things that could be done to assist the industry at this very difficult time.
	As of today, the removal of all restrictions outside the FMD risk area means that animal movements can take place freely. That coincides with the protection zone being folded into the surveillance zone, it being 15 days since the completion of preliminary cleansing and disinfection on the last infected premises. The size of the FMD risk area remains under review.
	I recognise that serious difficulties remain for the farming and food industries. In my statement last Monday, I set out the details of what we are doing to assist farmers in England. The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly are introducing their own welfare disposal schemes under the devolved arrangements—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Hilary Benn: I think that I can anticipate some of the questions that certain hon. Members want to ask. We are covering the cost of that assistance from our own budgets, although we do not yet know what the full cost will be. As I said last week, it is open to the devolved Administrations to approach the Treasury if they wish to do so. However, the best help that we can give is to help the industry to recover.

Alan Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise that hill farmers in Northumberland have not yet received any welfare payments, even though they see that a welfare slaughter scheme is in operation for farmers on the Scottish side of the hill? For farmers on the English side, however, not even the payments to which he has referred have come through.

Hilary Benn: I accept that and, as I said to the House last week, we will seek to make payments to those in receipt of hill farm allowance as quickly as possible.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State has been in discussions with the farming Minister in Wales, but his suggestion that the devolved Administrations need only approach the Treasury is not very helpful. He could sanction the £6.5 million promised in the first statement, and he should do so now.

Hilary Benn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my Department, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive each fund the schemes to support farmers in our respective areas at this difficult time. We are using our existing budgets to meet the costs thus incurred but, as I told the House last week, it is open for each of us to open discussions with the Treasury if we feel that we cannot manage with what we have. That is the sensible place to turn to first.

Alistair Carmichael: May I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for making time available last night to meet me and other Scottish colleagues, as well representatives of NFU Scotland? He will recall that it was put to him that the Treasury had funded the animal welfare and economic loss compensation schemes for farmers in Scotland and other parts of the UK in 2001, and that he was asked why the arrangements should be different this time. Will he allow the House to have the benefit of knowing the Government's opinion and tell us what is the difference between now and 2001?

Hilary Benn: It is true that the Treasury reserve met the costs in 2001, because the sheer scale of the outbreak and the costs incurred meant that no other budget—that is, of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the devolved Administrations—could possibly have coped with paying for the measures that it was decided needed to put in place at that time. That is the fundamental difference.

Alan Reid: I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the concordat between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Executive in respect of the state veterinary service and animal disease compensation. Paragraph 4 states:
	"Compensation payments for notifiable diseases will be made by MAFF".
	MAFF, of course, is now DEFRA, but the concordat makes it clear that the obligation to pay compensation lies with the UK Government. Why, then, are the UK Government not paying the animal disease compensation as they did in 2001?

Hilary Benn: Under the concordat, DEFRA has agreed to fund compulsory slaughter for disease control purposes. That applies to most diseases, including FMD, but the concordat does not cover meeting the costs of welfare disposal or economic support schemes.

Mark Williams: The Secretary of State will know that the Welsh Assembly does not have the contingency funds to deliver the meaningful welfare scheme that many of us want. Is he aware of any discussions that have taken place between the Welsh Assembly and the Treasury? In addition, we still need an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd): what happened, between draft and delivery, to the £6.5 million promised by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement last week?

Hilary Benn: I have answered the second question already. Drafts are prepared, options are looked at, colleagues have discussions, and I do not propose to get into a conversation about that— [ Interruption. ] The central charge that has been made—

Elfyn Llwyd: Not by me!

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman should not be so sensitive, as I was referring to the Liberal Democrat Benches in general and not directly at him. I was about to say that there is not a shred of truth to the central charge that has been made. As for the first point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), I am not aware of any specific discussions that Elin Jones may have had, but no doubt she will enlighten us.

Paddy Tipping: In his remarks at the start of the debate, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was, at best, rather dismissive of the £12.5 million package and the other measures that have been put in place. He implied that the Opposition would offer more in the way of compensation, but he was silent when I asked him directly who they intended would pay for it, and how much would be involved. In the longer term, does my right hon. Friend accept that we must move to a risk-based sharing of such costs, and look at insurance as a way of going forward?

Hilary Benn: In the end, it is about making choices and trying to give help in the most effective way. I listened to the representations made to me by the industry in England when I announced the package last week. I shall respond directly to the very good point made by my hon. Friend when I reach the end of my speech. I am very anxious to do that, as I have been very generous about giving way.

Ian Davidson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hilary Benn: No, I have been generous in giving way and I want to turn to bluetongue. As the House recognises—[Hon. Members: "Give way."]. As I am being encouraged to do so from the Opposition Benches I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson).

Ian Davidson: I am very grateful indeed to the Secretary of State. When I and a number of other Members met representatives of the National Farmers Union Scotland this morning, we had to ask more than 20 times before they eventually confessed that they have not actually asked the Scottish Executive for any money. In those circumstances, is not it either astonishingly naive or deliberately mischievous for some Opposition Members to say that it is all Westminster's responsibility when in fact the Scottish Executive have recently been given more than £1 billion of unspent money from previous years?

Hilary Benn: It is the responsibility of all of us. From the Scottish Executive's budget this year of about £26 billion, there are choices to be made about how the money is spent. I asked the same question last night when I met the delegation that included the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). No doubt the delegation will put the same points to the Scottish Executive as they put to me.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Hon. Members: Give Way.

Hilary Benn: No. I shall now conclude my remarks as many Members want to speak.

Alistair Carmichael: Frit.

Hilary Benn: Anything but.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hilary Benn: I have been generous in giving way, including to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
	The whole industry, the veterinary profession and farmers had been anticipating that bluetongue would arrive at some point. We know that, which is why we had a bluetongue strategy drawn up, why there was a lot of coverage in the media, why it was part of the DEFRA livestock market roadshow and why Opposition Front-Bench Members were briefed in July. It seems that the wind carried midges over from Europe and the first case was detected on 22 September.
	I realise that many Members have great concerns about the disease. The impact of bluetongue is considerable, as we have seen in northern Europe. That is exactly why we worked with industry leaders to identify the most appropriate boundaries and disease control measures when the disease was confirmed on 28 September. Bluetongue is a very different disease from foot and mouth; it is spread by midges and not by livestock, and rapid action will not mean rapid eradication, nor will culling animals. It presents a serious, long-term challenge, so it is vital that we work with the industry to decide what is best to do, which is reflected in the revised disease control strategy that we developed and published in August.

John Whittingdale: On a positive note, I can tell the Secretary of State that the farmer in my constituency who suffered from a bluetongue outbreak told me on Sunday that his cattle are recovering well. That illustrates the different nature of the disease. However, does the Secretary of State accept that the movement controls put in place to deal with bluetongue have equally as damaging an effect on the industry as the movement controls relating to foot and mouth disease? When might farmers expect some lifting of the movement controls relating to bluetongue?

Hilary Benn: I am coming to that point directly. Before doing so, I have to inform the House that as a result of reporting by two farmers in Peterborough and Ashford, Kent, following tests, we are today confirming two new cases of bluetongue in those locations. As a result, two new control zones are being introduced and the protection zone is being extended. Details will be available on the DEFRA website later today.

Damian Green: rose—

Hilary Benn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is affected. I give way.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the advance notice his office gave me of that distressing news not just for livestock farmers in my constituency but for the many farmers throughout Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east who use Ashford market. I hope that in the remainder of his speech the Secretary of State can give some certainty about time scales—how long the effects and the movement restrictions are likely to last. If possible, can he offer some practical reassurance to the many, many farmers who will be newly affected by this terrible outbreak?

Hilary Benn: I shall certainly try to do so and I shall come to that point in a moment.

Bernard Jenkin: I echo the thanks of my hon. Friends who have been so well supported by the Secretary of State's Department during the outbreak. Another case was confirmed in my constituency only this week.
	Is not the answer—to which the industry does not seem to be averse—to extend the bluetongue zone substantially so that there can be movement to slaughterhouses and movement of fattening stock across the country to enable the industry to survive? Bluetongue is not a crippling disease, like foot and mouth; it is a disease that we will have to accept and deal with, eventually by vaccination.

Hilary Benn: I accept the point the hon. Gentleman makes. We have talked carefully to the industry and the consensus at present is that we need to try to contain the disease in the east of England if possible and then plan for what we need to do over the coming months. We all hope for a cold winter, although nobody can promise one. But the issue is at what point we should face up to the question the hon. Gentleman puts—declaring the whole of England a bluetongue control zone and accepting that we have to live with the disease. As I told the House last week, this is a real dilemma for the industry, because it, above all, has the greatest interest in making the right decision. That is why we shall be holding further discussions with the industry group in light of today's development. As soon as we can make the arrangements, we shall organise a briefing on bluetongue for all interested Members, to advise them about what can be done and answer detailed questions about movement controls.
	We are all anxious to have a vaccine as quickly as possible. I hope one will be available next year, subject to its being shown to be safe and effective. We are discussing with the industry the approach we should take to vaccination once a vaccine is available and we are talking to companies that are trying to develop one. There are three—Merial, Fort Dodge and Intervet.

Eric Martlew: During the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, the decision was taken not to vaccinate because the industry—supermarkets and others—would not take the meat of vaccinated animals. Does my right hon. Friend believe they will take it from an animal that has been vaccinated against bluetongue?

Hilary Benn: We do not have a vaccine at present, but consumers regularly eat other meat from vaccinated animals, including poultry, so I am not sure that there would be a difficulty.
	Concerns have been raised about access to slaughterhouses. From yesterday, it is possible for animals to be moved to slaughterhouses outside the bluetongue control and protection zones in England, and I hope that that will respond to the most urgent representations and make a big difference.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall conclude. Many Members want to speak and I do not want to take up any more time.
	This has been and remains a difficult time for the livestock industry at the very moment that prospects look brighter for the arable industry. I thank farmers and their representatives for their assistance and support, because they are our first line of defence. I thank all DEFRA animal health and other staff, including staff at Pirbright, who have done all the testing in relation to both diseases, for their professionalism and hard work over the past two months.
	Today is one opportunity for the House to reflect on the lessons; Dr. Anderson's review will be another. I shall conclude with one more lesson on which I have greatly reflected. As has been said, the two outbreaks throw into sharp relief for the House how best to take decisions about disease control. There is a strong case for the industry to be at the heart of decision making in the future, in both taking responsibility and sharing the costs. It is a difficult balance to strike, but the people best placed to take the decisions are those who are most affected by them and the Government remain determined to do all they can to contain and deal with the two outbreaks. I look forward to continuing to work with Members on both sides of the House and with the farming community in doing so.

Christopher Huhne: This year has been a disaster for our farmers. Farmers are always at the mercy of the weather and other forces beyond their control, and that is illustrated by the bluetongue-carrying midge being blown across the channel, bringing farming in eastern England to a standstill. We very much regret the announcement that the Secretary of State has made today about the spread to Kent. However, this summer's outbreak of foot and mouth disease was not an act of nature or random misfortune. A Government facility, Pirbright, which was designed to protect British farming has, in the words of the official DEFRA report, "beyond reasonable doubt" been the cause of the outbreak. In other words, the cause of the incident is so certain that it meets the standards of evidence required for a conviction in a criminal court. The knock-on effects of that disaster have crippled exports and the livestock market at the very worst time of year.
	How could DEFRA, which has statutory responsibility for licensing, monitoring and funding Pirbright, have licensed a facility with an
	"old, poorly maintained and defective effluent system",
	with no fixed procedures for the maintenance of the drains? We are not talking about someone's home; we are talking about a category 4 biosecure facility. As the motion—we will support it—points out, DEFRA not only inspected safety arrangements but approved spending at the plant. There could not be a more clear conflict of interest.
	The key point, which the Secretary of State has not answered today, is that what seems to have happened at Pirbright is that the systems—not only the drains, but clearly the drains—have been run down to a point where there was no maintenance unless there was failure. That may be acceptable when running the Secretary of State's boiler at home, but clearly in such an important facility there must be proper, scheduled preventive maintenance. We know from whistleblowers—for example, Steven Kendrew—who were contractors at the site, that there was no adequate schedule of preventive maintenance. Cameras should have been sent down those drains to check what had happened and to see whether there was damage. One need not be a Thames Water customer to know that old drains leak, so it beggars belief that DEFRA did not deal with the problem by sending down cameras to find out the state of the drains, even though it was considering the matter.
	Ministers have said in the past that there was no awareness that there might be risks from the drains. Are they saying that it was not understood that the foot and mouth virus is able to survive in water and soil, and that a leaking pipe system could therefore prove to be a most grave hazard? That is exactly the sort of issue that a public inquiry could and should examine, along with the conflicts of interest.
	I am frankly appalled that the Secretary of State appears to show so little interest in what exactly went wrong. He is an honourable man, and he comes here and says that he takes responsibility, but he was not there when the key points of failure occurred. If the most senior civil servants who knew about the pipework problems are not disciplined, what sort of signal will that send to other people in his Department? What incentive will there be to pay proper attention to detail and due diligence with other risks? There has been an abject failure of responsibility, and those responsible should go. They have palpably failed to do their job, which was to assist and protect British farming. After the rural payments scheme fiasco, there is a risk of a growing culture of impunity in DEFRA, where any sloppiness will be condoned simply because no one is likely to be found out, and if they are found out they will not face the consequences.
	As we look to the future, it would be good to know whether the Minister is satisfied that no further risk is posed to British farming by the Pirbright facility. But what about the implications of this health and safety debacle for the other Government facilities? For example, has anyone yet put a camera down the drains at Compton—Pirbright's sister site—to see whether its effluent systems are in a similar state of disrepair? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the development of a vaccine for bluetongue has been held up by this debacle? If so, for how long?
	Of course, one of the unanswered questions continues to be whether the Secretary of State has yet made a proper assessment of the costs to British farming arising from the outbreak. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) asked for such an assessment on 8 October, as did I during DEFRA questions, but we have yet to receive an answer.
	The losses are very serious—I hope that the Secretary of State will also deal with this issue—because in the final two weeks of September, lamb prices were down by an average of 21 per cent. per kilo live weight compared with the same period last year. During the first week of October, the average shop price of a leg of lamb was up by 19p a kilogram, or a 2.7 per cent. increase, on the same time last year. The disparity between farm-gate and checkout prices has long been an issue, and in the light of the Office of Fair Trading's findings regarding the fixing of milk prices, I hope that Ministers will take this problem extremely seriously and give it proper attention—if necessary, by bringing in the appropriate competition authorities to check.
	The National Farmers Union estimates that the cost to British farming is in excess of £100 million, but we must have a clear estimate from the Department. In Builth Wells, last Friday, a farmer sold her blue face Leicester rams for an average of just £200 per head, whereas in 2006 they averaged £700 per head. The insecurity and the depressed prices are compounding the difficulties that farmers face, despite the very welcome limited resumption of exports. Many farmers make about 80 per cent. of their income for the year at this time, and they are facing acute cash-flow problems. The entire farming calendar has been stalled, and the disruption to breeding now will have consequences next spring.

Alan Beith: Does my hon. Friend not find it surprising, given that every hill farmer is known to and registered with the Department and is already subject to the payments system, that they cannot have received a payment by now?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because the truth is that we were discussing and debating earlier today who will ultimately pay in Scotland and Wales. Many English farmers would like to be paid at all, without the debate about who or which budget will ultimately bear the burden, to ensure that they have some relief for the very substantial distress that their businesses are facing.

Tim Farron: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although the additional top-up payments to the hill farm allowance are worth, on average, about £800 per hill farm, the average losses to hill farmers, certainly in my constituency, are between £10,000 and £20,000? That is scant compensation.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: the amount of compensation bears no relationship to the losses that many people are suffering. The reality is that those losses are being suffered, as the Secretary of State must know, in many cases by the most vulnerable and the smallest members of the farming community. We might not get the big guns and the NFU asking for special schemes of support, but I hope that he is listening, for example, to the Tenant Farmers Association, which is pressing for exactly that.

Alan Reid: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should have announced both a light lamb and an older ewe welfare disposal scheme for the whole UK, so that farmers in England, Scotland and Wales could all benefit?

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is clear that we need a welfare scheme. It is not enough merely to talk about compensation after the event; it is important to ensure that the impact on the market for farmers is dealt with. As he points out, not just farmers with light lambs but others in the sheep sector are struggling.
	It is estimated that 40,000 sows are awaiting culling and that the number is growing by 4,000 a week. There is virtually no market for sow meat in the UK; 99 per cent. of it is usually exported. However, the abattoir in Essex that usually handles 70 per cent. of sows for export is currently within the control zone and not taking any animals. With no market for these animals, their numbers are building up on farms; that causes animal welfare issues, with overcrowding creating all the usual problems. Indeed, increasing feed costs mean that it can now cost £20 a month to feed a sow. The situation will only get worse as the number of unsellable animals increases. Will the Government listen to farmers and intervene now in instances where the suspension of exports in particular has created a surplus of animals across the UK?
	DEFRA's animal health budget is not devolved, because England, Scotland and Wales are one epidemiological area. Will the Minister assure us that his Department will foot the Bill for animal welfare and market support measures in Scotland and Wales?

Angus MacNeil: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the non-devolved aspect of the budget and I draw attention to the commendable argument made by the National Farmers Union in Scotland, which has asked for a mere £15 per head welfare compensation scheme. That is a low price; it is not top dollar by any means. It is a sensible request for bottoming out, to which the Secretary of State has unfortunately not yet listened.

Christopher Huhne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I merely add to the arguments that we did not hear earlier from the Secretary of State.
	There is one enormous difference between the 2001 outbreak and the outbreak today that the Secretary of State did not point out. The outbreak today was ultimately caused by a facility that was inspected and regulated and licensed by his Department. There is therefore a clear responsibility that must cover Scotland and Wales as well as England.

David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing for payments to be made for an economic cull in Scotland, England and Wales, as opposed to the so-called welfare cull that Scotland has claimed all along is the purpose of exterminating 250,000 lambs.

Christopher Huhne: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the degree of damage to hill farmers across the UK associated with the Government's responsibility for the facility in Pirbright means that this is a special case. The Government have to consider their own responsibility and address that.
	I was interested to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has much greater legal knowledge than I have. It is clear that DEFRA has a moral, and probably a legal, obligation to get British farming back on its feet. Furthermore, it has an obligation to ensure that what happened at Pirbright never happens again. That a Government facility through institutional negligence has been the source of the outbreak is a national disgrace and the people responsible must be held to account.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That applies from now onwards.

Ian Cawsey: Having broken out of the Whips Office, I wish to use my re-established ability to address the House to talk about the effect that foot and mouth has had in my constituency of Brigg and Goole. In particular, I want to talk about the pig industry and the severe problems that have been caused, even though my constituency is some way from Pirbright and all that happened there.
	First, let me add to the comment made by those in the farming industry, other commentators and, in fairness, in the Opposition's motion that swift and decisive action by DEFRA when the outbreak was first notified reduced its potential to spread. As the British Veterinary Association says in its briefing for the debate, the overall approach was highly successful in that regard. However, that does not mean that there have been no problems, or that there is nothing more that the Government could do to help.
	I also want to speak a little about animal welfare. Having chaired the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his officials in DEFRA and other agencies take a strong interest in animal welfare and try to do the right thing, even if they do not always do everything that I tell them they should do. It was therefore unfortunate that the shadow Secretary of State accused DEFRA and its agencies of a disregard for the welfare of animals that arose out of either callousness or stupidity. I notice that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not repeat that remark in his opening speech, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept that many of us in the House would not accuse his officials of that.
	In the past few days, I have visited Stuart Teanby, a pig farmer in Winterton where I live. Stuart has a small operation—run by just himself and one other—with a weaner unit producing pigs that are reared and then moved on to other farms for fattening. I also met John Godfrey, who is not my constituent but farms so much in my area that I sometimes feel that he owns most of it. From John, I heard how the outbreak has hit someone right at the other end of farming—a huge organisation with large numbers of pigs to be dealt with. However, both are suffering from the consequences of movement restrictions and both feel there are things that DEFRA could do to assist.
	I have spoken before in the House about the need to support our pig industry, which is unsubsidised. The industry has high animal welfare standards, particularly when compared with other methods of production in other countries, but that brings additional costs; in addition, increases in feed prices this year had already added another burden on to the sector. When movements stop, weaners are still coming into the production chain at a rate of about 66,000 a month and, between the ages of 12 to 22 weeks, they grow at a rate of 900 g a day—or 2 lb as I prefer to call it. A unit such as Stuart's is rapidly filled, the pigs continue to grow, the welfare conditions deteriorate and, as I know from my days in the Whips Office, fighting and bullying can break out. Anyone who knows anything about pigs will know that they can cause a lot of damage.
	The partial lifting of the movement ban helped only to a certain extent. The day before I visited Stuart's farm, he had finally been able to sell on 880 pigs. He still had too many, but it was a start. However, the price had collapsed and he had to sell each pig at about £14 less than his production cost. That is a loss of more than £12,000, which he, as a small farmer, can ill afford. In the past, the Government have helped the pig industry with storage schemes to allow the throughput to continue and to keep a decent price. It will be some time before the market naturally balances out again and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider implementing such a scheme again.
	The other issue for both Stuart and John is the culling of sows, which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned. The market was stable and lucrative before the outbreak; now, there are major problems both financially and in animal welfare terms. About 200,000 sows are slaughtered each year in the UK. There is virtually no domestic market for this meat; 99 per cent. of the meat is exported, most of it to Germany, and EU restrictions effectively stop the trade. As the hon. Gentleman said, the flow is largely handled by one abattoir in Essex, which cannot export at the moment. The result is not only that we have the 40,000 extra sows that he mentioned, but that the figure is growing by about 4,000 every week.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend has asked about Cheale's abattoir in Essex—I think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) also referred to it. In answer to their points, may I point out that we are in discussions with the European Union about allowing animals to be slaughtered at the abattoir and then exported? We do understand the pressures and we are involved in discussions.

Ian Cawsey: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I will await developments with great interest, although an awful lot of sows will still come on to the market very quickly. We know what the result of that will be.
	I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said about risk sharing and our need to develop systems to deal with such issues in the future. However, they are not in place now and, in the circumstances, I believe that a national sow disposal scheme should be put in place. I fear for the welfare implications if nothing is done. The British Pig Executive tells me that there are abattoirs that would be willing to slaughter sows—the Minister may be interested to learn that—and that rendering capacity exists. Obviously it would be for the Department to calculate the figure, but we estimate that the 40,000 backlog could be disposed of for £3 million. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire told Ministers where £2 million of that £3 million could come from, so perhaps the Department will look at that. When one considers the problems for farmers and animal welfare, £3 million is not an awfully large amount.
	These are difficult days, even in places that are well away from the affected area. I know that there are many issues relating to other sectors, but we have limited time and many other eminent Members are better qualified than I to talk about them. I will curtail my comments in the hope that the deep concerns of the pig sectors are understood by Ministers and that they will take urgent action to address them.

David Maclean: I am grateful for the chance to participate in the debate. The Opposition have accused the Government of incompetence over their handling of foot and mouth. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to read out the indictment. I respect the Secretary of State greatly. He comes to this with clean, fresh hands, and I hope that he will purge some of DEFRA's policy delusions. The policy delusions from 2001 are largely responsible for the present state of affairs. My criticisms might be rather harsh, but the Secretary of State is exempt from many of them, perhaps until we reach the compensation package.
	The first charge against the Government is that they have refused to admit what caused the 2001 catastrophe. DEFRA is still obsessed with markets and farmers moving animals about. Of course, once foot and mouth started, because dirty food came into the country and there was a failure to spot foot and mouth at a pig farm, animal movements exacerbated the situation, but they did not cause foot and mouth—dirty food coming into the country caused it.

Eric Martlew: The right hon. Gentleman, like me, was deeply involved in the 2001 situation. Surely the farmer living at Heddon-on-the-Wall who did not boil pig swill or examine his animals was the cause of the 2001 outbreak.

David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has got that quite wrong. Where did that filthy food come from in the first place? Foot and mouth did not suddenly spring up at Heddon-on-the-Wall or Catterick Army base. It had to come into this country from a foreign source. This is my second point: the Government did nothing to protect our borders and then failed to detect foot and mouth at Heddon-on-the-Wall—the farm had been inspected. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—later DEFRA—was obsessed by controlling farmers and markets and covered up the fact that it had not taken the necessary preventive action to stop foot and mouth in this country. Of course, DEFRA is still obsessed by controls on markets and farmers.
	Thirdly, based on these self-delusions, repairing Pirbright was not a priority. After the discovery that the drains were clapped out, clearly part of the thought process was, "Well, that's not too important because it doesn't really cause foot and mouth. Foot and mouth is caused by farmers moving animals around the country." The Secretary of State says that no one actually said that the drains were leaking, but surely it stands to reason that if one gets a report saying that drains are ancient and clapped out, one automatically thinks that they are probably leaking as well. The Government cannot escape from their responsibility by saying that no one told them about the leaking drains. The guilty man is not the Secretary of State, but the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who did not put up the necessary funds to fix those drains. That man is now the Prime Minister.
	My fourth charge against the Government is that once foot and mouth started, they initially made frantic efforts to blame Merial and to try to exempt the Institute for Animal Health from responsibility. DEFRA's attempt to blame someone else when its laboratory was at fault was despicable. DEFRA was the guilty party and it remains as such. At the end of the day, it will probably have to pay in court.
	The Government's fifth mistake was moving slaughtered animals around the country. They were horrified by the spectre of more burning pyres, although why they did not go for animal burial I do not know. They added to the risk. Of course, they say that the lorries were sealed and that vets drove behind them looking for any blood and guts dripping out, but the very fact that dead foot and mouth animals were being moved from infected premises to incineration plants along highways in clear zones added unnecessary risk. I assume that that happened because, for purposes of media handling, it looked better on the telly than burning cows.
	A sixth charge of incompetence against the Government is that farmers outside the protection and surveillance zones—perhaps inside as well, but certainly outside, in Cumbria—were left utterly in the dark about what to do. No one told them anything. If farmers had been watching the telly or listening to the radio, they would have discovered that animal movements had been banned, but many were not doing so. They also were not linked, like computer geeks, to the DEFRA website every minute of the day. However, the only information for farmers was on that website. The Government must consider how they communicate with farmers outside the zone during a catastrophe such as foot and mouth. They should not assume that everything can be done through the website. It is expensive to send letters by post, but that is probably the only way in which farmers can be given adequate warning.
	The seventh charge is that the Government did not seem to have carried out forward planning on the licensing of animal movements. It took DEFRA days and days to issue licences and guidance on whether farmers could move their cows across the road for milking and on casualty animals going to slaughter or abattoirs. That should not have happened. Surely, after 2001, a manual was sitting on a shelf that said, "If foot and mouth happens again, this is what we do on the licensing regime." All the local and county council inspectorates should have had that manual so that those responsible for issuing licences could have turned to the relevant page and processed the licences on the morning after the outbreak occurred. Instead, they seemed to be making things up as they went along.
	The eighth mistake was the false all clear. The Government said, "We've eradicated foot and mouth from Surrey. It won't happen again chaps. Carry on!" However, that was negligent and should not have happened.
	The ninth mistake was the failure to start markets expeditiously outside the protection and surveillance zones when it became clear that foot and mouth was being contained in Surrey and Berkshire. Yes, the markets were started eventually, but it probably would have been utterly safe to start them 10 days earlier and that would have saved an awful lot of the desperate costs that have been faced in Cumbria, the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
	The 10th charge is that the 20-day standstill period negated the point of starting the markets. The Government said, "Well, we've got the markets started," but then imposed a 20-day standstill period. What on earth was the point? Yes, the standstill is now down to six days, so a farmer who was operating under a 20-day standstill and is on the fifth day has only one more day to go. For all new farmers the period is only six days. However, again, this is part of DEFRA thinking, "Farmers cause foot and mouth and farmers moving animals are the guilty party, not us, Guv."
	The 11th charge is that the compensation package announced by Ministers is grossly insulting, given that farmers are losing £10 million a day through no fault of their own. If farmers had caused this through dirty farm practices or bad welfare standards, there would be a certain culpability, but farmers are utterly innocent and have a grossly inadequate compensation package.
	My 12th charge against the Government, although I congratulate the Secretary of State on standing firm, relates to the Scottish cull. Let hon. Members from north of the border come clean. This is not a welfare cull in Scotland, but an economic cull. There might be merits in an economic cull to compensate farmers, but if there are merits in such a cull in Scotland, there could be merits in an economic cull in England.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Maclean: No. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I am running out of time.
	I am glad that the Government are not paying money to the Scottish Executive for participation in an economic cull. The welfare considerations are utterly different this time. In 2001, millions of animals were starving to death or trapped in fields with water up to their ankles. Animals were suffering. However, while animals are not suffering at the moment, farmers are suffering economically. The answer is to get the markets started as soon as possible. We could do with a better compensation package, but that should apply to the whole country. Scotland should not be separately funded on economic grounds.
	My 13th charge relates to the confusion over access controls. DEFRA rightly banned hunting and all hunts complied, but people could ride hundreds of galloping horses over the fields, or walk over the fields, provided that they were not hunting. DEFRA let its prejudices rise to the surface.
	I summarise by saying that the Government are guilty of negligence because they still delude themselves about what causes foot and mouth. They did not issue guidance manuals in advance, they failed to repair their own laboratory and they failed to communicate with their customers—the farmers. They failed to deal with market consequences and they were prepared to operate double standards throughout the United Kingdom. They failed in their prime duty of preventing this contagious disease from spreading.

Geraldine Smith: I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. I will be brief, as I know that many other Members wish to speak. First, I am pleased that it appears highly unlikely at this stage that the foot and mouth virus has spread outside Surrey, although I accept that fragments of land in Berkshire are affected. However, the outbreak should never have occurred, and we need a full investigation into the biosecurity arrangements at Pirbright. Such a thing must never happen again.
	I remember only too well the heartache suffered by farmers in my constituency during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. I remember farmers in tears, the smell of burning animals, and the impact on tourism and other related businesses. I am therefore grateful to the Secretary of State, because his swift and effective action to control the outbreak appears to have worked, and we seem to have contained the disease.
	It has once again been a terrible year for British farmers, particularly hill farmers. Hill farmers in the Lune valley in my constituency have been hit very hard. Between 70 and 80 per cent. of a hill farmer's income is generated at this time of year. It was the worst possible time in which to have movement restrictions in place, and the lamb market has collapsed. Prices are down from £1 a kilogram to 60p. Not surprisingly, hill farmers have been very distressed. It is welcome news that exports have resumed; that is important for farmers.
	What else can the Government do? The aid package to hill farmers is certainly welcome, but the money must reach those farmers quickly; that is important given the cash-flow problems. The marketing and promotion of British meat and dairy produce is essential for our domestic and export markets. We produce the best meat and dairy products in the world. We comply with the highest standards of hygiene and animal welfare, and we need to tell people that. We need promotion of British meat. The drive for cheap food and the power of the supermarkets has been at the root of many farming and rural problems over the past decade. We must have fair farm-gate prices. Milk prices have improved, but small family farms are still disadvantaged, because prices are often volume-related.
	James Birkett was Lancashire county chairman for the National Farmers Union over the past few years, but he recently stood down. He has written to me, and I will read his letter because it is very important:
	"As you know many of your constituents are farmers, and the recent F&M outbreak in Surrey, plus the new Blue Tongue cases in East Anglia have caused extensive movement restrictions throughout the whole Country.
	This has come at the worst possible time for the livestock farmers in this area as it is the time of year when all the breeding sheep sales and the beef store sales take place. As you can appreciate, there is now a major cash-flow problem in many farming households.
	The annual payment for the 2007 SFP"—
	that is, the single farm payment—
	"is due on 1st December 2007 and that money would be particularly welcome this year. We, many of our local colleagues and probably thousands of other farms, especially in the livestock sector, have had our maps verified; had no change in land use; no change in stocking ratios and accumulated no more land. In fact, nothing has changed since the SFP was set up.
	Why is it not possible for these holdings to be paid out immediately, on December 1st? This would leave more time available for the less straightforward cases and also, alleviate a great deal of hardship."
	That is a simple request, and I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Birkett's argument. I should be grateful for a response from the Secretary of State, or from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) when he winds up the debate. Will they let us know whether the payments can be made quickly, particularly the straightforward single farm payments?
	It is essential that the nation produces its own food, rather than rely on imports. Often, those imports are inferior. As I say, British farming complies with the highest standards on animal welfare and hygiene—indeed, on everything. We have lots of regulations. Farmers often feel that there is an unfair playing field, because they are competing with food from abroad that has not been produced to the same standard as food from this country, and I agree with them.

William McCrea: Surely the Secretary of State should do something about the issue. Cannot he encourage his European partners to stop Brazilian beef imports from challenging British beef? British beef is produced to the best possible standards, and even Brazilian beef is not produced in a foot-and-mouth-free zone.

Geraldine Smith: Those issues should definitely be taken up. We owe our farmers a great deal for what they do, and for managing the countryside. I was out walking in the Lake district this summer, and I walked across beautiful fields. The countryside is preserved by farmers; we sometimes forget that, and we take them for granted. Of course, they also provide our food, and it is important that we produce our own food. The Government must therefore make every effort to help farmers through these difficult and distressing times. It is important that we must make sure that our farmers are not forgotten.

Humfrey Malins: The outbreak of foot and mouth in the village of Normandy in my constituency of Woking was confirmed on Friday 3 August. Shortly afterwards, the focus of attention shifted to the village of Pirbright, thought to be the source of the outbreak. Pirbright, also in my constituency, is the home of the Institute for Animal Health and the company Merial, which share a site.
	Our first thoughts today should be for those in the Woking area, and throughout Surrey and beyond, who have suffered the most, emotionally and financially—local farmers and smallholders who had livestock killed. They and their families went through stressful and tragic times. They and others who suffered as a result of movement restrictions and surveillance zones handled the situation with calm and patience, and we must all commend them on their fortitude.
	Next I would like to express my thanks to some individuals. Mike Nevins—he is the mayor of Guildford—and Diana Lockyer-Nibbs of Normandy are both councillors from the Woking area. They reacted and behaved exactly as councillors should, providing support and guidance to people in Normandy, Pirbright and the surrounding areas in the difficult days following the outbreak. I also thank the Secretary of State and his Ministers for their help during those times. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) for their helpful advice to, and contact with, so many people in the Woking area in the days after the dreadful outbreak.
	The Institute for Animal Health is an internationally respected and admired organisation which has existed happily in the village of Pirbright for many years. Indeed, quite a number of local people work there. The institute has been noted throughout for the excellence of its work, the commitment of its staff and its huge emphasis on safety. Professor Martin Shirley, the director, leads an outstanding work force. It is vital that the Government remain committed to the Pirbright site and to the planned final phase of the site redevelopment which is to go ahead in the coming years. Will the Government please confirm that today? It is a crucially important site.
	Merial, the company on the same site, is a world-leading innovation-driven animal health organisation providing a comprehensive range of products to enhance the health and well-being of a wide range of animals. It is a key player in worldwide biosecurity and the world leader in foot and mouth disease vaccine production. Merial has been producing at the Pirbright site for about 15 years and employs about 80 people there, mostly from the local area, in vaccine production. It provides emergency vaccine capability for 20 countries and international organisations and is a leading global company committed, like the institute, to the highest standards of product quality and safety. Like the institute, Merial has responded positively to the Spratt report recommendations and has put them into effect.
	We may never know exactly how the outbreak occurred, but we can make a judgment today as to where much of the blame lies. If we were the jury considering a verdict, we would ask ourselves certain questions. In relation to the institute's site at Pirbright, whose duty is it to license? The Government. Whose duty is it to regulate? The Government. Whose duty is it to inspect? The Government. Whose duty is it to provide the funding? The Government. Who, therefore, is the guilty party in this case? The Government.
	The Government may have learned lessons from 2001. I congratulate them on reacting more quickly and efficiently this time, but one immediate problem in the Normandy area was the failure to close footpaths in the locality immediately. I called for this, as did the National Farmers Union, but I have to report, sadly, that people were able to walk across the protection zone as late as five days after confirmation of the first case.
	There was a shortage of information, especially for local people and local farmers and smallholders. Not all of them are on e-mail. I had constituents ringing me about whether they could ride their horses in the protection zone, and few were updated. In a stressful situation, keeping people fully informed is essential in controlling the situation and their anxieties.
	There are many in the Woking area who have not been informed very carefully about compensation, which is another important issue. Specifically, can the Minister write and tell me how many people in my constituency are to be compensated, when they will be compensated, the extent to which they will be compensated and the precise procedure for obtaining compensation? This is an area of great difficulty and complexity for a number of my constituents.

Lembit �pik: The question of compensation goes back to the last foot and mouth outbreak and we have had many problems with it in the past. For example, some of the farmers with farms on either side of the English-Welsh border still have resentments and problems from that time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such problems cannot be allowed to arise in the case in his constituency?

Humfrey Malins: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in these matters and accept his point entirely. I hope we will get it right this time.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are many people in my constituency, and no doubt in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends and of Members in other parts of the House, who are not directly in farming but who are, for example, hauliers whose business has been totally destroyed, and that no compensation is currently forthcoming?

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. Friend is right. He refers to problems in his constituency, and there are other peopleI shall not use the phrase on the fringes because in a sense they are directly connectedwho suffer greatly and who are confused as to their position. The Government should look carefully at the whole issue of compensation and make it plain to everybody who wants to know who is entitled and how they will receive it.
	The Government's position is damaged by the Spratt report. Its main focus is on the old, poorly maintained and defective effluent system that is shared by the two facilities at Pirbright. There is reference to the poor state of the effluent pipes, indicating that adequate funding has not been available to ensure the highest standards of safety for the work on foot and mouth disease virus carried out at this ageing facility. The report goes on to state that there has been concern for several years that the effluent pipes were old and needed replacing, but after much discussion between the institute, Merial and DEFRA, money was not made available. That is the crucial point. I am driven to the conclusion that inadequate funding and possibly inadequate inspection are major causes of the problems that we have faced in Surrey. I have had many conversations with the local Pirbright parish councilan excellent organisation, which has been concerned for many years about the lack of funding.
	Let me repeat the critical point that DEFRA is responsible for the inspection and licensing of both sites. The geographical set-up of the relevant pipe would have been approved by DEFRA years ago and should have been inspected by DEFRA. I am troubled by the possibility that the Government are trying to imply that this is a nothing to do with me, Guv issue, implying that in criminal terms their hands are clean. Let us look at Pirbright and find out who is at fault there seems to be the Government's attitude. The true answer to It's not me, Guv is, I am afraid, It's a fair cop, but we are not going to get that acknowledgment from the Government.
	We all want answers to some pretty direct and basic questions. First, do we know for certain what was the cause of the Normandy outbreak? Secondly, is DEFRA 100 per cent. satisfied with the quality and frequency of its inspections and its licensing procedure? Thirdly, are the Government 100 per cent. satisfied with the level of funding provided over the last 10 years? Fourthly, to what extent, if any, do the Government accept that lack of funding was a contributory factor? Next, what specifically did the institute ask for in respect of funding, what was given, what was refused and where have there been delays? Finally, what exactly has been done to improve the drainage system at Pirbright since the problems were first identified some three or four years ago? Those are specific questions requiring specific answers. The Government have a duty to tell the House their answers, just as they have an absolute duty to ensure that this sort of outbreak does not happen again in Normandy, in the rest of Surrey or in the rest of the country.

David Jones: I am pleased to contribute to this debate, particularly since I represent one of the foremost lamb-producing areas of the country. The Vale of Clwyd and the surrounding hills are renowned for the quality of produce and the very brand Welsh lamb is a byword for excellence. Farmers know their business; they know their animals; they know the land they work on. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) pointed out, it is they who are largely responsible for the landscape that we see today.
	My constituents were devastated by the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 and it has taken a long time for their fortunes to improve. One can only imagine the devastation that the events of 3 August and what followed have wrought on them. It could not have come at a worse time. Most of the trade in Welsh lamb is conducted during August to December, which is the livestock farmer's harvest period. The export trade this year and possibly for next has been destroyed, with the consequent glut causing lamb prices to collapse. Indeed, at Ruthin market two weeks ago, one of my constituents obtained, after costs, 36p a head for his ewes.
	The devastating effect on the industry can scarcely be overstated. I believe that everyone recognises that the fault lies in incompetent supervision of the Pirbright facility. There can be no question but that any facility whose sole function is to contain a dangerous virus that allows that virus to escape into the environment must necessarily be viewed as negligentor even worse. Perhaps, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested, there is strict liability under the principle of Rylands  v. Fletcher. The Secretary of State's assertion that pure economic loss cannot be addressed could well be wrong.
	The fact is that this Government, to their shame, regarded the outbreak of foot and mouth disease as a suitable vehicle for establishing themselves with a reputation for competence in the run-up to the election that they believed was fast approaching.  [Interruption.] That is perfectly obvious, despite the pained expressions emanating from the Secretary of State. It is perfectly obvious that that was the Government's modus operandi from the moment that the disease became apparent.

Hilary Benn: indicated dissent.

David Jones: The Prime Minister broke off his holiday, halfway through his scone, to hotfoot it back to London in order to take charge of the Cobra team. We subsequently witnessed the spectacle of the Secretary of State for Wales being quoted in  The Western Mail as saying, remarkably enough, that the Government's handling of the foot and mouth crisis had established for them a reputation for competence. If that constitutes a reputation for competence, heaven knows what would constitute a reputation for incompetence.
	When the Prime Minister finally decided to chicken out of the election, he said that he could have gone to the country on the basis of the reputation for competence that the Government's handling of the foot and mouth crisis had established for them. That was a cynical exercise all along. In fact, it is more than competence: it is a cynical manipulation of the processes in this country.
	I want to press the Secretary of State on something that he mentioned earlier. In his statement to the House on 8 October he made it clear, as he has today, that the devolved Administrations would have financial responsibility for the support schemes in Wales and Scotland. We know that excised from his original speech were the following words:
	I have also agreed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that Scotland should receive 8.1 million and Wales 6.5 million to assist them in countering the impacts of foot and mouth on their livestock farmers.
	The Secretary of State has told the Houseand I am sure the House accepts itthat the words were not originally inserted with an eye to the election. What I should like to know, and what I am sure other Members would like to know, is why, in that case, they were excised. It is a simple question, and I think that the House is entitled to an answer to it.

Lembit �pik: Furthermore, without such an explanation would it not be reasonable for the farmers of Wales and Scotlandincluding those in my constituencyto feel disrespected once again? It seems that a form of words offering a fairly small amounteven that small gesturewas removed by someone who did not think it important enough to inform the Welsh and Scottish farmers of the support that they could expect.

David Jones: That is a fair point. I do feel that the Government have shown a certain lack of respect to farmers in Wales and Scotland.
	It is clear from what the Secretary of State said earlier today, and on 8 October when he made his initial statement, that the Government intend to resist any claim for consequential economic loss. He will be aware that both NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales are taking legal advice on the prospects of recovery. Would it be too much for the Government to indicate that they will deal with those claims in a positive, proactive and co-operative manner and will not expect the farming industry to go to the wire in courtand particularly that, if they should indeed be liable according to the principle of Rylands  v. Fletcher, they will meet whatever obligations they have to the industry to the full extent of their legal liability?
	Finally, there is the question of accountability. What has happened over the past two months has been the most appalling episode for the British farming industry. It cannot be right for such a massive infliction of damage on the industry to go without a single individual being disciplined, and without a single resignation. Resignations must be called for. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that aspect of the matter, and will ask those whom he considers responsible to resign.
	This whole episode has highlighted a Government who are incapable of dealing with any emergency on any basis other than with an eye to publicity and the way in which they present themselves to the electorate. It is high time that they were straight in their dealings with the agricultural community. I can tell the Secretary of State that the British agricultural industry has sustained enormous damage, and that it will be a long time before it recovers and an even longer time before it forgets.

Elfyn Llwyd: I follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), whose constituency borders mine, and I agree with much of what he said.
	Wales is quite far from the site of the foot and mouth outbreak, but as the hon. Gentleman said, it has brought the livestock industry in Wales to a standstill. From 3 August to 10 October, nothing has been able to be moved or sold and it has hit Wales particularly badly. Abattoirs such as Welsh Country Foods are saying that they do not intend to send meat for export as the conditions imposed are so onerous. As the hon. Gentleman said, 80 per cent. of Welsh ewes are classed as hill and upland breeds. Of course, they produce lighter animals. Those are normally for export and not for consumption in the UK; they are normally about 2 kg lighter than the average weight in England and Scotland. Therefore, there is little domestic demand for those light lambs. It is a crucial time: exports should be going on apace and we should be reaping the harvest, as it were.
	In 2006, 1.1 million lambs were exported from Wales, with a 30 million value. That is 35 per cent. of the total Welsh lamb production. NFU Cymru has written a memorandum saying that it is essential that, following the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
	government both in London and Cardiff maintains the pressure on the European Commission to allow the UK to resume exports as soon as possible.
	There was some good news in what the Secretary of State said about the six-day standstills. That is welcome, but some 200,000 store sheep are traded in Wales annually, with almost 70 per cent. of that trade occurring between August and December. In that period, 900,000 sheep, including breeding ewes, are also normally traded.
	The Welsh Assembly Government have tried to put in place a light lamb scheme to go some way towards alleviating those huge problems, and they are welfare problems, regardless of what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) said earlier. They are genuine welfare problems in the uplands of Wales and in Scotlandthere is no getting away from itand they are getting worse by the minute.
	With regard to bluetongue, we are aware that the BTV8 vaccine is available and ready to go. I urge the Secretary of State to look at that situation because we can all see that bluetongue disease will not go away overnight. It might be stalled during a cold winter. I need not say that there is a great fear that it will be back with us in the spring. The last thing we want is to be unprepared for it. I hope that contingency plans will be put in place to deal with that. It is bound to come back.
	Before I deal with the question of compensation, I make this other general point. In 2001, the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, told the supermarkets that he wanted them to support the meat industry in the UK. It is now 2007. Precious little support is being offered. This is an opportunity for them to get involved properly in supporting this most important of industries. Although the Government cannot force their hand, they undoubtedly have a role in persuading them gently, and not so gently if necessary, to come into this void and to start to help out at what is the most important time in recent history for the agriculture industry in Wales and throughout the UK.
	The agriculture industry has seen a lot of troubles in the past 10 years. I am sure that we will come through this eventually, but times are very hard and we need support. I ask the Secretary of State again to look at the question of compensation. I do not want to dwell on the statements that we have had, but it is interesting that in both statements the Secretary of State has said that the outbreak has arisen from an unusual set of circumstances and that, to reflect that, the Chief Secretary has made funds available. I take it that the unusual set of circumstances means that there could be culpability on the part of Government in due course. I happen to agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West. The case has been made. We have talked in legalistic terms. It must be a strict liability issue. If someone undertakes a dangerous occupation on their land and any toxin or other danger emanates out to the public, they are liable under Rylands  v. Fletcher and the rule of strict liability.
	I do not condemn the Government, but I ask them to think carefully. The Secretary of State said that he has lawyers who will advise him. There are lawyers in this House as well, and the opinion has been made.  [Interruption.] Is the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) laughing? Perhaps this is a laughing matter to him, but some of us care passionately about it. I respectfully advise the Secretary of State that this is a strict liability issue, and that it is therefore now time for the Government to apply pressure for compensationon the Treasury, if that is where the money is to come from.
	I spoke yesterday and the day before with the Minister in the National Assembly for Wales who has responsibility for agriculture. It is not acceptable for us in Wales to have to look for contingency funds for something that occurred due to a strict liability issue over the border. We are far away from the seat of this infection, but we are suffering as much as anybody elseperhaps more so. In the area I represent, there are many communities of hill farmers so we are suffering greatly. Diversification is not a relevant term there; it is not possible to diversify in high upland areas. We are utterly dependent on the trade in question, which has been brought to a standstill.
	I ask the Secretary of State to liaise further with his opposite number in Cardiff, Elin Jones AM, Minister for Rural Affairs, and to use his good offices to try to ensure that the Treasury is receptive to an application for reasonable compensation at this stage. There are clear welfare and economic issues; there are huge issues for all of rural Wales that could, in part, be addressed.
	I do not accuse the Secretary of State of cynicism; I have been careful not to do so. I believe him to be an honourable man, and I urge him to assist us in this most important of matters for both Wales and Scotland.

Anne Milton: I wish to raise two main issueswhy this happened and who is responsible, and the individual concerns of my farmersbut I shall start by paying tribute to Government Ministers. When the news broke on that Friday, they went to some lengths to be in touch with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) received the same treatment, as did many other Surrey MPs. Ministers were vigilant about keeping in touch with all of us throughout that weekend, the following week and when the second outbreak occurred.
	I also wish to state that it was a pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State to Guildford to meet some of the staff working at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs site in my constituency. I have no doubt that the Government learned a great deal from the 2001 outbreak, and their swift action on animal movements certainly had a significant impact on this outbreak.
	However, I am sorry to have to say that most of my praise ends there. There has been a lot of comment about why the outbreak occurred. I wish to highlight a few remarks made in both the Health and Safety Executive report and the Spratt report. First, let me quote from the HSE report:
	However, such was the condition in which we found the site drainage system that we conclude that the requirements for Containment Level 4 were not met...Our conclusion is supported by the evidence we found of long-term damage and leakage, including cracked pipes, unsealed manholes and tree root ingress.
	It is astounding that the Secretary of State cannot accept that there had been long-term leakage.
	What that report goes on to say is even more shattering:
	we are aware of a difference of opinion between IAH and Merial over responsibility for maintenance of a key section of pipe.
	That is astonishing. It sounds a bit like a council arguing about a piece of land and who should cut the grass, with the housing department saying it is highways land and the highways department saying it is housing land. It is incredible that, in a facility that was dealing with such a dangerous virus, people were squabbling madly over who was responsible for a pipe.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that another troubling aspect of this is the suspicion, at the very least, that the reason why the two organisations were under such financial pressure was that DEFRA was very short of cash because it had been fined by the Commission as a result of the Rural Payments Agency episode?

Anne Milton: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. It has emerged during today's debateI welcome it for that reasonthat this was crisis management and catch-up management that, in the end, had disastrous consequences. In fact, it was a failure of management.
	The Spratt report refers to an
	old, poorly maintained and defective effluent system that is shared by the two...different types of facility...The poor state of the IAH laboratories, and the effluent pipes, indicates that adequate funding has not been available to ensure the highest standards of safety for the work on FMDV
	the foot and mouth disease virus
	carried out at this ageing facility.
	It continues:
	There had been concern for several years that the effluent pipes were old and needed replacing but, after much discussion between IAH, Merial and Defra, money had not been made available.
	The reports are damning, and it is disingenuous of the Secretary of State to deny that this problem was known, and to deny that there was a failure to take action to do anything about it.
	I turn to some of the points that individual farmers have raised with me. Although farmers in my constituency felt that they were dealt with quite well by DEFRA, certainly at the beginning, latterly, communication did falter. They talk about an issue of trust between DEFRA and vets and farmers, and express concern that DEFRA would not allow movement for welfare purposes unless it was backed up by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. DEFRA asked them for statistics that they had already supplied. There is a feeling that nobody is listening to them, and they get very irritated at having to supply all those statistics anyway, only to be asked for them again when the outbreak happened. They also talk about the compensationsome 12.5 million to help farmers affected by foot and mouth disease, yet the cost to the industry is estimated at 100 million.
	A farmer in my constituency who deals in specialist breeds talks about the problems that such farmers face. Their cattle take much longer to fattenthey are taken right up to the 30-month mark prior to slaughter. However, foot and mouth has prevented them from slaughtering their cattle at the 30-month mark, as they are over the limit that abattoirs will take. As a result, the farmers do not get the market rate and are left out of pocket.
	There is an even more damning indictment, from a farmer who has written directly to the Secretary of State. At the end of his letter, he says:
	The way in which I have been treated and the working practices of your staff
	DEFRA staff
	have left me with no trust in the professional competence of Animal Health and I question its fitness for purpose and ability to cope with the current outbreak of foot and mouth.
	He describes a catalogue of concerns, including poor blood-taking techniques, distress to his cattle, the inability to communicate well with DEFRA, blood test delays and, in particular, the huge delays that he encountered in getting answers on milk movements.
	Although DEFRA staffincluding the staff whom I and the Secretary of State metwere clearly working very hard, they were not necessarily working with the farmers or understanding their very real concerns. My farmers' frustration at the lack of information, the poor information provided, and the sense that nobody understood their problems or was working with them, is profound. There are many lessons that need to be learned, but as has been pointed out, there needs to be further work, particularly on the airborne transmission of foot and mouth disease.
	Another issue to raise, which has not been touched on this afternoon, is the huge loss to charities in and around Surrey. Charities rely on a lot of this land for the holding of events to raise funds, thus they have lost a huge income over the summer.
	The Secretary of State is well known to many of us in this House as a man of integrity and honour, and I am extremely grateful to him for staying in the Chamber for the duration of this debate. However, he does not realise that foot and mouth affected both Surrey and Berkshire, and his comments during his opening remarks are unbecoming of his reputation. He sounds just like a typical Minister wriggling on a hook. I am sorry to say it in these terms, but it disappoints me that he did not show more integrity during his opening remarks. I hope that he will specifically answer some of the questions that have been raised. The farmers and the many businesses associated with farming, which we must never forget, will pay a very high price for this situation. The very least that they deserve is for the Secretary of State to admit the failings of his Department.

Tim Farron: We are clearly discussing a matter of enormous concern to rural Britain, but it should also be of enormous concern to the whole country. Those of us who lived in the parts of the country that were so badly hit by the 2001 outbreak will recall the graphic and visible scenes that have been describedthe burning pyres, the piles of dead bodies, the pictures of Prime Ministers in their biological suits and the closed footpaths. Thank God, we are not seeing those again. The problem is that, whereas in 2001 the highly visible nature of the outbreak meant that urban Britainthe 95 per cent. of the population that does not live in the countrysidewas aware that there was a crisis, which resulted in sympathy, political support and pressure on the Government, in 2007 the consequences of foot and mouth are less than highly visible to most of the country.
	All of us know that that second phase of outbreaks in September came about at the worst possible time. It was on the eve of both the Westmorland show, which is obviously highly important to us in Westmorland and Lonsdale, and the back-end sales. One farmer put it to me that one way of getting urban folks to understand the nature of the problem and the extent of the crisis is by saying that what happened to the livestock markets is the equivalent of a virus breaking out in the high streets of Britain in the last week of November and the retail sector being put out of business for six weeks over Christmas and new year. That is the gravity of the situation. I make no party political point, but merely observe that the overwhelming majority of Government Members of Parliament do not represent rural areas and thus are not being pestered by their constituents because this is not a visible problem to them. As a consequence, Ministers are perhaps quick to take visible action to deal with the outbreak of foot and mouth, but are not so quick to deal with the economic realities.
	Last Monday, the Secretary of State made a statement in the House on the compensation package. In the end, the package, containing an 8.5 million uplift in hill farming allowance and an extra 4 million in additional support, was staggeringly inadequate. Given that many of my hill farmers have lost well in excess of 10,000 each and that, in export sales alone, the farming industry is losing 2 million a day, that compensation, although welcome in so far as it goes, is massively inadequate.

Robert Smith: The important message for those not in a rural area is that this is not just about the jobs on the farms or about seeing the farms through one season. It is about getting the industry through the crisis and back on a sustainable footing for the whole food manufacturing industry that depends on its existence throughout the year.

Tim Farron: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation, and I agree with him. I shall give one graphic illustration of the problem. This morning, I talked to a farmer in Longsleddale in my constituency. He had been to market this morning, and for a finished fat lamb he received 28. Earlier in the year, he would have expected to have received 42, and even that would have been an inadequate sum. Prices are now at early 1980s levels, yet this is 2007.

Alan Reid: Does my hon. Friend agree that throughout the whole of Britain we need a welfare disposal scheme for light lambs and older ewes and for dairy bull calves, all with compensation? We also need a headage payment for breeding ewes to compensate for the market losses, as well as additional funding for farmers and crofters in hill farming areas.

Tim Farron: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should be pursuing all those measures. It would be a small price to pay, given the benefits that farming delivers for this country.
	I referred to the ridiculously low prices that farmers are being offered as a consequence of the dreadful situation they are in, but we all will have observed that prices remain the same on the shelves in the supermarkets. The problem is an excess of supply over demand, and therefore disproportionate power in the hands of the buyers, who know that they have farmers in a vice. I want to take this opportunity to condemnI hope on behalf of the whole Housethe role played by many buyers and supermarkets in deliberately exploiting the weaknesses of farmers in the markets. That is a demonstration that the free market does not work. There is no invisible hand in the marketplace making things fair. We need to demonstrate our visible hand to ensure fair trade for farmers. If I may be forgiven the plug, it is a clear demonstration of the need for a market regulator in that area.
	Most of the farmers in my constituency are tenants and they have tiny incomes. Only two weeks ago, I talked to a hill farmer who reminded me that he had not made a profit in the past decade and he is living off what little he has. Over that period, many of the farmers in my area have lived off historical profits and, as tenants, they have no property to fall back on.
	Few people are coming to farming from fresh, without a farming background. The farming lifestyle is very attractive in many ways and the work done is so valuable, but increasingly few of those who are from farming backgrounds are taking the risk of following their parents into farming. One consequence is the reduction in the number of working farms. One valley in my constituency had 26 farms 25 years ago, but now has only seventhe same amount of land is managed by a much smaller number of people. The consequences are clear. First, we run a huge risk with the security of food supply. The Government are vexed about energy supply, but they are seemingly not that bothered about the food supply; they should take the issue on board.
	Secondly, there is the landscape. People may think that farming is heavily subsidised and we give folks in agriculture money for nothing, but they should remember that the countryside that we value so highly and on which tourism completely depends does not occur naturally. It exists because it is farmed. It is estimated that some 400 million a year is spent by farmers on maintaining the countryside, and they get none of that back. The footpaths are maintained by farmers. Fields are not boggy and flooded, thanks to farmers. Natural England should be reminded that if it wants partners to help to deliver its biodiversity programme, it needs farmers farming.
	Keeping Britain farming is an investment, and I am afraid that the Government are not making that investment. If we are to invest money in the industrythe Government owe it to farmers to provide more than the pittance that has been offered so far. The most obvious approach to take is price support, as many other hon. Members have pointed out. If a third of sheep were to go to export and now will not do so, the answer is to buy them and create a floor price so that farmers get a fair return for the work that they have done. After all, as we have established, the problem is the Government's fault.
	Let us be clear: foot and mouth disease is an animal welfare problem, but principally it is a farm economics problem. That is why it is so important that the Government get the balance right. In killing off foot and mouth, we must not kill off farming.

Brooks Newmark: I have often said that Mystic Meg would have done a better job of economic forecasting than the Prime Minister managed when he was in the Treasury, but his ascension as pharaoh this summer was met in short order by, if not quite the full spectrum of biblical plagues, at least a fair proportion of them. The rivers did not exactly turn to blood, but they certainly burst their banks, and our farmers have had to endure more than their fair share of pestilence and death. But sadly, across swathes of the country, there has been no exodus of animals going to market. The only frantic escape this summer has been the number of savers fleeing in the face of the Government's inept handling of the Northern Rock debacle.
	The Prime Minister was keen to assure the country that he took personal control of the latest foot and mouth crisis. With typical hubris, he told the press in September that,
	it is only because we learnt lessons from what happened in 2001 on foot and mouth that we were able to act as instantly as we did to prevent the spread of that disease.
	Only a week later, the Government had their own attack of foot in mouth, when they were forced to revoke the all-clear in the face of a new outbreak.
	The 2001 general election was delayed because of the seriousness of the foot and mouth outbreak, but this year the Prime Minister was far more concerned with his own case of election fever than with the plight of thousands of farmers. Although he is quite safe from bluetongue, when it came to quashing election speculation, he proved that he was suffering from a good dose of forked tongue. Indeed, he decided against taking his case to the country only when he realised that he had become,
	a tainted wether of the flock,
	Meetest for death
	at the polls.

Angus MacNeil: Given what the hon. Gentleman said about the Prime Minister's hubris, does he agree that the Prime Minister and his Government should not be allowed to get away without paying the compensation due to farmers and crofters in Scotland?

Brooks Newmark: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent pointthe same point made by all Opposition Members. I completely agree with what he says as it applies not only to Scotland, but to England and Wales.
	My constituency lies within the present bluetongue control area. I can only say that over the summer local farmers were more interested in getting accurate information from DEFRA than they were in election speculation. As the livestock manager for a large farm in my constituency says,
	DEFRA guidance has not been particularly clear,
	and the
	situation is changing so fast that nobody seems in control.
	As a dairy farmer, he has not been too badly affected, because milk sales have continued and the price of milk has actually risen. However, although some livestock sales have now resumed, he has had to cull bull calves from his herd because they could not be sold and he has lost 40 or 50 per head as a result. His vets are being very strict, which he admits is quite right, but vets and farmers alike are finding it hard to get access to accurate and up-to-date information from DEFRA.
	Farmers are not irresponsible people and they are not unreasonable. They appreciate that it is hard for the Government to keep up with a rapidly evolving situation such as the bluetongue outbreak.

Adam Afriyie: I share my hon. Friend's view that farmers do the best that they can but that it is often DEFRA's operating procedures that cause the trouble. Is he aware, for example, that in the Windsor constituency in Berkshire, which was affected by the outbreak, cattle were seen falling off the back of a DEFRA lorry on a roundabout?

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I need to move on.
	As I said, farmers are not irresponsible. They appreciate that it is hard for the Government to keep up with what is going on, but they should not have to fight to get accurate information and to get the necessary authorisations when they are only trying to obey the law. They should not be feeling that the Government have lost control.
	Like much of East Anglia, Essex has been caught once again, now in a double whammy from foot and mouth and bluetongue. Forty years ago almost to the day, the first cases of foot and mouth were confirmed in Oswestry, marking the beginning of the 1967 outbreak. The culprit for the August outbreak was quickly established as the strain of virus from the 1967 outbreak, which was stored at Pirbright and released through broken drains. It seems that short-sightedness is not the only guilty bequest that the Government have inherited from the era of Harold Wilson.
	Responding to the inquiry into the 2001 epidemic, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) said:
	The House will want to know what else would be different in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease.[ Official Report, 6 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 286.]
	Well, although farmers have again been left to pick up the pieces, the difference is that the Government caused this outbreak directly. Why do I say that? As the Secretary of State himself announced last Monday, no money had been invested in the drains because they were not believed to be problematic. He was adamant about the sincerity of that belief, but how far was it reasonable and who is to be held accountable for it, given that it proved so disastrously incorrect? The Secretary of State told the House that
	nobody thought that they were in such a condition.[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 39.]
	But did anybody think to checkand if not, why not?
	If, in similar circumstances, there had been an outbreak of a disease that was infectious to people, resignations would have followed and, presumably, charges would have been brought against those responsible.

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brooks Newmark: I have not got the time, so I am not giving way.
	The latest foot and mouth outbreak has indirectly affected thousands through the loss of livestock and livelihoods. Someone still has to step up and take responsibility for that outbreak and its consequences for farmers.

Bill Wiggin: We have covered an important subject today. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) opened the debate by asking all the right and awkward questions of the Government. He also patiently took some rather silly interventions from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who clearly had not read page 9, item 31 of the Spratt report.
	My hon. Friend also took an important and valuable intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the removal of top soil from the Pirbright site, and the Government's complete failure to record where they have put it.
	The Secretary of State did not do himself a great deal of credit in his response to my hon. Friend's opening speech. I believe that he told us that no work on a bluetongue vaccine will take place until the new heat treatment filters are fitted. As I understand it, the Pirbright factory was making a vaccine for a disease that we did not have in this country, and allowed that disease to escape. Now that there is bluetongue all around the Pirbright factory, it is not making the vaccinealthough we now need it, because the disease has emerged. It defies belief that the Government cannot get anything right.
	Nor is it right for the Secretary of State to suggest that no scientist had complained about the drains and that therefore the drains could not have been leaking. Scientists do not look down drains. That is the responsibility of DEFRA; it is supposed to regulate the site, rather than leaving it to scientists to complain about the drains. The idea that nobody acted negligently cannot be right; it is absurd and flies in the face of DEFRA's reactions to farmers, who are now being prosecuted. John Hepplethwaite, 72, and his wife Sally, 69, are being prosecuted for not noticing, I believe, that their cattle had foot and mouth. They are not vets or veterinary inspectors, but they are being prosecuted while DEFRA, which is responsible for patrolling and regulating the Pirbright site, is, apparently, without blame. That is patent nonsense. The Secretary of State described farmers as the first line of defence; we cannot go around prosecuting our first line of defence, Secretary of State.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said clearly that the Government were guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and he is absolutely right. He issued a withering attack on the Government and robustly defended his farming constituents. Sadly, his mind may be on other things at the momentin particular, persuading the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) not to vote for him.
	The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) praised the Government and described his interest in animal welfare. He also described some of the difficulties that his pig farming constituents had had, but failed to make the point that the Government could do a great deal more for animal welfare. Top of that list would be to ensure that the right drugs were available for animals that have caught bluetongue diseasethey need steroids, painkillers and penicillin. What is the correct dosage for animals with the disease? What guidance is there? Hon. Members may have seen the excellent article in this week's  Farmers Weekly; it made clear that lessons from Holland can be learned, but I have not yet seen anything that shows that the Government have picked up on those valuable lessons.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) made a brilliant speech. He accused the Government of incompetence, citing at least 13 instances in which they had done the wrong thing because they are obsessed by farm movements and not their own biosecurity. He timed his speech to the moment, and it was a joy to hear him show that, without any reasonable doubt, the Government have been guilty of negligence.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) rightly mentioned the importance of farm-gate prices. She spoke too about the power of the supermarkets, the speed of single farm payments and of hill farm allowances. She was also right to note the importance of producing our own food.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) thanked his local people and councillors, and spoke extremely eloquently about Merial. He rightly said that it was entirely DEFRA's responsibility to license, regulate, inspect and fund the Pirbright site. He also mentioned that footpaths had not been closed, something that has caused much distress to all our constituents across the country. It is a great shame that the Government have singularly failed to deliver the joined-up thinking that we were promised. He asked about compensation and about the quality and frequency of inspections, and he wanted to know whether DEFRA was happy about the present arrangements. He made some extremely important points, to which I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond when he winds up the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) made a lovely speech about his pride in his constituency, and in its farmers and lamb production. He talked about the pathetic prices that farmers now receive36p a head for certain ewesand he spoke brilliantly about the legal precedent involved. He attacked the Government's reputation for competence, rightly citing the Prime Minister's cynical manipulation of the process, and he also spoke about accountability and resignations. He said that the farming industry will not forget what has happened.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about the price for light lambs for export, and about the huge numbers of sheep being traded in Wales. Citing the Rylands  v. Fletcher judgment, he made the case that liability lies with the Government. My notes are a little shaky, but I suspect that he meant that the person performing an action must take responsibility for it. That means that it is the responsibility of the regulatory body to ensure that none of its sites leak diseases, and especially not one as important and dangerous as FMD.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) thanked the Government for briefing her and keeping her in touch. Her approach was very reasonable, and she quoted from Spratt about the long-term leakage problems. She made a very good case about the state of the pipes, rightly saying that the Government had failed to keep them in good condition. She said that the Secretary of State was wriggling on a hookquite generous, given what I saw of his performance. She also mentioned the lack of integrity on display, and I suspect that she might have been a bit tougher if the right hon. Gentleman were a less popular Minister, as this was not his finest hour.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said that the damage done to the farming community by an outbreak at this time of year was like an attack on retail at Christmas time. He was absolutely right: all livestock farmers will have had a terrible time, and that is certainly true in my constituency. The price of lamb has collapsed, and the ripple effect will hit the beef price as the year goes on. He added that Labour had no rural representation in the Chamber, and it was unfortunate to see that there were no Labour Back Benchers listening to his speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) made an excellent speech, in which he claimed that the Government were speaking with a forked tongue. I suspect he was making his speech with a silver tongue[Hon. Members: Oh!] I accept that this is an extremely serious matter about which we should not joke. My hon. Friend also told the House about how vets and farmers in his constituency had been kept very short of information. He took an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) who talked about cattle falling from the back of lorries. Obviously, the Government's handling of these things leaves a lot to be desired.
	I started asking questions about bluetongue as long ago as 16 April when the Government seemed confident that they could handle any outbreak of the disease. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case. The virus has spread to 36 farms, 60 infected animals have tested positive since the first case on 28 September and now the disease is present in sheep.
	The Secretary of State suggested that a vaccine will be available in the summer. I hope that is true and that the Minister will confirm that information. I understand that 36 scientists should be working on producing the vaccine at Pirbright, but obviously they are not because of the lack of the right heat filter.
	Lord Rooker told my noble Friend Baroness Byford that DEFRA and its partners have been undertaking
	a cost analysis of potential bluetongue outbreaks and control measures in the United Kingdom.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2007; Vol. 690, c. WA291.]
	Has any work been done to examine how the disease is being handled in Holland? I have already mentioned the article in  Farmers Weekly and I hope the Government will look at it and reflect on what they can do to improve animal health in the UK.
	What did the Prime Minister say when he was told about the foot and mouth outbreak? How did he react after coming back from his holiday to go on the radio on 8 September to tell everybody what his Government were going to do only to discover that the disease had broken out again?
	There is another thing that is not quite right. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
	Any issues relating to the funding of the effluent system, whether remedial or replacement, would be a matter for the IAH and Merial...the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council...and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.[ Official Report, 9 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 450W.]
	Nobody has mentioned their role. Have they been asked to contribute to the fund the Government have put together to help farmers? If they have, how much have they put in? After all, the Minister said that they were among the people responsible. We need to know who he thinks is responsible for the escape of the virus. We know from the Spratt report that the Pirbright site is not up to scratch and that the proposal made to DEFRA in 2004 was ignored. It is important that we have answers from the Minister.
	I realise that we are running out of time, but it is worth reminding the House that the bill for foot and mouth so far is 250 million. The single farm payment fine was 305 million. Bovine tuberculosis has cost 100 million. So far, that is 650 million of incompetence. Apparently, it costs about 240 million to build a 400-bed general hospital. We could have had nearly three hospitals if DEFRA had been competent.
	The Department has failed to offer protection in the areas for which it is responsible. DEFRA has failed the people who trusted it and it has failed the test of competence.

Jonathan R Shaw: This has been an important debate for our agricultural industry and our farming communities. It follows the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 8 October, when he brought the House up to date with what had been happening over the summer in terms of foot and mouth and bluetongue.
	During that period, we worked closely with farmers and their leaders. We are grateful for their co-operation. We are acutely aware of the pressures they face from the FMD and bluetongue outbreaks, which happened, as many Members said, at one of the worst possible times for livestock farmers. We shall maintain that close working relationship. As my right hon. Friend said, we shall organise a meeting for Members next week to discuss bluetongue and answer questions.
	Members made many points about FMD, with particular reference to Pirbright. Questions were put about the drains and the letter we received on 20 July. Did that letter say that the drains were damaged or in a poor state of repair? No, it did not. Was the work of the inspectors criticised in any of the reports? No, it was not. Was the age of the drains in any way connected with their possibly being damaged? No, it was not. Were we asked to fund new drains, because of damage? No, we were notnot at all. Did Spratt or the HSE comment on the work of the inspectors? Did they say that the inspectors' work was incompetent?

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: No, I will not give way; I have not got sufficient time.  [ Interruption. ] I am not frit; I have got a lot of issues to get through.
	We are putting in funding; we have given 31 million. If there was a priority and the people at Pirbright knew about it, they would have used part of that money to ensure that the drains were repaired. We gave them those resources. I was asked by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) whether we would continue to fund that investment at Pirbright, and I can assure him and the House that we will continue to consider that investment.
	On handling, three times a day, we had bird tables, to which some hon. Members came along and saw DEFRA and all our partnersfrom industry representatives to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animalsworking hard together for the farming community. We held regular meetings with the industry. There was good dialogue with the devolved Administrations. We made every attempt to inform Members of Parliament.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned animals being shot from helicopters. If he will provide us with that information, we will be very interested to see it, because my officials can find no information to that effect.
	On footpaths, we followed the science at every stage in the decisions that we took, and our contingency arrangements have been agreed since the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. We learned those lessons; we have the contingency arrangements, which are not just written by DEFRA, but consulted on every year and laid before the House. All the industry and its representative groups play a part in being involved in drawing up those contingency arrangements, which we follow. People were concerned about footpaths, but we followed the science. I attended public meetings in Surrey; we listened to the concerns of the local community, and we closed those footpaths.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) asked what we are doing to develop a bluetongue vaccine. We have been discussing that with other European member states that have the disease, and we will work in partnership with them and the Commission to find a vaccine for it.
	Hon. Members have made many points, and I will try to crack through as many of them as I can. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked when hill farm payments would be made. We said that payments are scheduled to start in early November and will be subject to EU state procedures, but we want to get those payments to hill farmers as early as possible and hope to do so in November.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) said that he supported the swift action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stateaction that was endorsed by the British Veterinary Association. He spoke about animal welfare and the high welfare standards of the pig industry in his constituency. We will maintain our dialogue with the pig industry and work with it to find solutions.
	The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) put his 12 charges to the Government. He said that it was all down to DEFRA all the time, but we have had our contingency arrangements since 2001, and they were drawn up after the involvement of industry and partners right across the sector.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) referred to Mr. Birkett, a farmer, and the Lancashire NFU. She asked for single farm payments to be made as quickly as possible. I am sure that she will appreciate the difficulties that the Rural Payments Agency has had. We want it to ensure a smooth operation and we do not want to expose it to anything that will jeopardise its full recovery, but we will get those payments to farmers as soon as we possibly can.
	The hon. Member for Woking spoke about the Institute for Animal Health, Merial and his constituents. We had many conversations throughout early August. He has made his criticismsI have heard thembut I would like to commend him on the work that he did in representing his constituents.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) spoke with passion on behalf of his constituents and about the difficulties that farmers are facing. We need to restore the markets so that prices increase.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about hill farmers, and I have said that we want payments to get to them as soon as possible. He also mentioned bluetonguewe need to put suitable arrangements in place. We have our contingency plans and we are working with other member states to ensure that we can find a solution and a vaccine. We have spoken to supermarkets and hope that they will listen to our comments, as well as to his remarks and those of all other hon. Members

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House expresses great sympathy with farmers and the farming industry and acknowledges the difficulties they are facing as a result of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and bluetongue; recognises the work that has already been done by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Animal Health, farmers and their representative bodies and others in containing foot and mouth; agrees that the priority for the Government must be to work with the farming industry and others to support the resumption of market activity as quickly as possible; and notes the steps the Government has taken to deal with what happened at the Pirbright laboratory site.

Liam Fox: rose[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would Members who are leaving please do so quietly?

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance. Yesterday, during the defence debate, as reported in columns 719-20 of  Hansard, I raised the issue of the bonuses being paid to members of the armed forces who are deployed from Iraq to Kuwait or other parts of the Gulf, and I suggested that they would lose money as a consequence, to which the Secretary of State said that that is not truehis words in  Hansard.
	I understand that it is true that the bonus is not paid to anyone in Kuwait and that it will not be paid on all operations in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is clear that, intentionally or otherwise, the House has not been given the correct information. Will you ask Mr. Speaker to look at  Hansard, in view of the facts that are available in the House of Commons Library and which have been given to Members in letters from Ministers, to see whether that might be redressed at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point of order that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. He will be aware that Mr. Speaker always follows the proceedings in  Hansard very closely. Those on the Front Bench will have heard the comments made by the hon. Gentleman in his point of order, and I am sure that he will, if necessary, find other ways of making the point that he had just made.

Bullying in Schools

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	I am pleased to open today's debate on dealing with bullying in our schools. This is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate these issues since we announced our new package of measures to help schools tackle bullying, Safe to Learn: Embedding Anti-Bullying Work in Schools, in September.
	The safety and well-being of children and of the professionals who work with them is a top priority for the Government, as I know it is for Members in all parts of the House. Our commitment is reflected in the new public service agreement to improve children and young people's safety, of which bullying is one of the four underpinning indicators. This indicator is measured using the Ofsted Tell Us survey, which talks to children and young people about their experiences of bullying.
	The starting-point of our policy on bullying is that every child has the right to a good education as well as the right to feel safe and secure as they learn. That is not just our concern as the Government; it is the concern of parents, teachers and young people themselves. Schools should be safe places for children and young people. They should be communities founded on tolerance, understanding and mutual respect and they should be places where it is safe to learn and also safe to teach. Those are the principles that are fundamental to improving attendance and developing young people as healthy and happy individuals, while ultimately raising academic standards as well. In contrast, those affected by bullying can suffer not just in the most obvious way, but in their studies, so where bullying does occur, schools must deal with it quickly and decisively.
	The new measures that we have introduced are designed to help parents, pupils and teachers to tackle bullying on three fronts. It is important to have robust anti-bullying policies in schools. Safe to Learn, the guidance to which I referred earlier, gives school staff practical advice and effective strategies and approaches to prevent and challenge bullying. It also offers information for schools working together with parents to support those who have suffered from bullying, engaging the whole school community in the fight against it. In addition to the new guidance, we have developed targeted support for particular schools through the national strategies, while regional advisers are sharing good practice and helping schools to improve their anti-bullying policies.
	Through our partnership with the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which we also fund, we provide further support to schools through regional co-ordinators who can provide advice to local authorities and schools. With the support of the main teacher unions and professional associations, we have issued the anti-bullying charter to help schools draw up effective policies and evaluate procedures.

Barry Sheerman: When the Select Committee on Education and Skills looked into bullying, we discovered that when bullying takes place in schools, it is quite difficult to know how bad the situation really is without a national system of registration. I thought that Ofsted's report this week was rather complacent about bullying and did not pay much attention to it. Given that we pointed out that difficulty to the Department, are the Government having any second thoughts about it?

Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the important work that his Select Committee does on the issue of bullying and education more widely. As he is aware, our view is that it would be wrong to overburden schools with statutory requirements on reporting, but we expect them to collect and record information about bullying incidents, which we believe is best used on a local basis. There are some technical difficulties in achieving absolute consistency in the recording of bullying, but a toolkit is available from the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which should help schools follow best practice in the recording of these incidents.

John Penrose: Is it not true that bullying is one of the most under-reported problems in schools? Whether or not there is a consistent way of measuring it across the country is always less important than establishing an environment in which pupils who are victims of bullying feel able to report it to someone so that proper action can be taken.

Kevin Brennan: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is far more important to embed an anti-bullying culture in our schools that will make children and young people confident that systems are in place so that when bullying is reported, appropriate action will follow. The updated guidanceI shall talk about its new additional parts laterprovides the right sort of framework to create that sort of culture. Speaking as a former teacher, albeit many years ago, I am aware that there was occasionally in the past a culture within schools that bullying was something that the school management should deny could possibly be happening in their institution. That is understandable because of their fears about the school's reputation, but I think we have now moved on to acknowledge that bullying takes place in every institution, not just in schools. It is important for that acknowledgment to be acted on, which is what the guidance is all about.

Angela Watkinson: Is not one of the problems the fact that bullies will almost habitually deny having done anything wrong, and it is often difficult to gather evidence to substantiate a claim? Parents will defend a child who they cannot believe could be guilty of bullying, and finding out exactly what has happened can be quite a complex process.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Lady is rightand, of course, bullying is not always physical. The position can be especially difficult when psychological bullying such as teasing is involved. A good policy in schools and the following of guidance will raise awareness, helping professionals to be more alert and spot signs of bullying in both those who are being bullied and those responsible for the bullying.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister is making an interesting case, but is not bullying most prevalent in a culture of ill-discipline? Does he share my concern about the fact that, according to figures produced in the past year, more than 10 per cent. of children at no fewer than 1,587 schools have been excluded? Should the Minister not focus on that wider issue?

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that behaviour is very important. Every Ofsted report over the past 10 years has shown an improvement in the number of schools that are meeting either very good or satisfactory standards of behaviour. However, we want to go further. We want to raise the bar in terms of behaviour, as we have made clear in the new Department for Children, Schools and Families. I hope that if that results in a change in the statistics, the hon. Gentleman will support our action. We think that behavioural standards are as important as academic standards, because one feeds into the other.

John Bercow: According to the evidence, 41 per cent. of gay children in schools are beaten up and no fewer than 17 per cent. of them receive death threats. Will the Minister tell us how the revised and strengthened guidance will promote action to counter that phenomenon, especially in the light of the growth of faith schools in which there is often a very strong and traditionalist ethos in regard to sexual practice? If that is not dealt with by good guidance, it could lead to a bullying and homophobia that most of us in the House would regard as abhorrent.

Kevin Brennan: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing record in the House on this subject. He and I collaborated in the most positive way on the Bill that became the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and his long-standing record includes having moved his own party in the same direction in relation to homophobic bullying and equal treatment of people with a gay orientation. I will deal with his intervention a little later in my speech.
	More than three quarters of secondary schools and more than 50 per cent. of primary schools are already using the anti-bullying charter. Clear procedures, coupled with a strong message from heads and teachers that bullying will not be tolerated and that schools will apply disciplinary sanctions to perpetrators, is the key to instilling confidence in parents and pupils. The guidance and the charter are invaluable tools that will help heads and teachers to develop the approach that works best for their schools, in order to deal with the problems and challenges specific to them. The advice is now backed by strengthened legal powers to enable heads and teachers to tackle bullying.
	The Education and Inspections Act 2006 has made absolutely clear that teachers who are in charge of pupils have the necessary legal backing to discipline pupils for bad behaviour, including bullying. The Act gives teachers clear legal backing for confiscation of items such as mobile phones from pupils when they are used to cause disruption or bully other pupils. Heads now have clear legal backing to regulate the conduct of pupils outside the school gates where appropriate, including applying sanctions on their return to school. Those powers are important and, taken together with the guidance, provide an effective framework to help to tackle any problems of bullying. However, as the world changes, so does the nature of bullying. Keeping up with the evolving problems that bullying presents and giving good advice to tackle specific forms of bullying is our next defence against the problem.
	As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, last year we produced our guidance on bullying around racism, religion and culture. We have added to that this year by producing new guidance to tackle homophobic bullying. I am pleased to say that it has received a very warm and wide welcome. We know from surveys that homophobic bullying is common, yet anti-gay remarks are rarely treated with the same seriousness as, for example, racist remarks in schools. It is important that all school staff know how to challenge homophobic remarks, including the use of the word gay as a term of abuse.
	I am absolutely delighted to confirm that the approach that permitted the introduction of section 28 is now well and truly gone from our politics. I think that that is welcomed on both sides of the House.

Stephen Williams: The Minister mentioned the importance of language and the use of the word gay as a term of abuse to suggest that something is second-rate or derisory. What sort of message does he think the BBC sends out when it allows leading disc jockeys, who are listened to by a large number of young people, to use the word gay in a pejorative sense? The BBC says that that is acceptable because the BBC has to reflect 21st century use of language. That is the excuse that I got back from the then director-general of the BBC when I wrote to complain about it.

Kevin Brennan: I do not wish to refer to any particular individuals in responding to the hon. Gentleman but as he may be aware I have made it clear in public remarks on the matter that I regard that as highly unfortunate. It is my view that it is unacceptable for the word to be used in that way. It is particularly important for high-profile figures to remember that.
	Where section 28 hampered teachers from using their professional judgment to discuss with students sensitive issues around sexual orientation, the new guidance on homophobic bullying, which has been developed in collaboration with Stonewall and Educational Action Challenging Homophobia and in broad consultation with all interested parties, including faith groups, gives teachers for the first time specific advice to help to challenge and to change homophobic attitudes, while supporting and affirming gay, lesbian and bisexual pupils, and their right to be themselves without being bullied.
	The guidance provides schools with advice on how to use the curriculum to encourage a climate of respect to ensure that gay pupils and gay teachers are fully included as part of the school community and that those pupils also excel at their studies. Next year, we will go further by issuing new guidance for schools on how to prevent and to tackle bullying of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) also has that as one of his top priorities.
	Bullying is not new, but there are new forms of bullying, or rather new means to bully. As technology rapidly develops and is more easily accessible, bullies have made cyberspace their new playground. Cyberbullying is a particularly insidious and harmful form of bullying, as it reaches into people's homes and direct to their mobile phones. There are various surveys and estimates, but a recent study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families indicated that about a third of 12 to 15-year-olds report having experienced cyberbullying in some form.
	Some incidents will be more serious than others. The use of the term happy slapping is as much a misnomer for what it represents as the term joyriding. There is nothing happy about being assaulted, but then for the assault to be recorded and shared with others is simply wrong. Cyberbullying can also take the form of abusive texts, e-mails and messages on social networking sites. Of course, it is not just pupils who are affected by cyberbullying. Teachers can be victims, too, with serious consequences for their motivation, job satisfaction, and classroom teaching.
	Through the cyberbullying taskforce, we have now brought together the industry, education professionals and law enforcement agencies to take forward a programme of work to tackle cyberbullying. I am particularly pleased that the industry is starting to face up to this problem by participating in the work. Many of the companies in this industry started off as small unregulated operations with a culture averse to any so-called censorship, but they have to understand that as their businesses grow up, their culture must do so also. Those companies have a corporate social responsibility to the young people who use their services. It is essential that they understand that. That is why I am so pleased that many of them are participating in our cyberbullying taskforce.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend has referred to instances of cyberbullying. As he knows, there are legal remedies against harassment under legislation that we introduced in the past 10 years, and they are often used by adults. Is it not now time for schools to consider further legal remedies that children and teachers might take?

Kevin Brennan: In our view, there is no need for any new offences to be created in relation to cyberbullying because the law is adequate. I absolutely support the right of schools to take legal action in such circumstances, where appropriate. As I have said, the companies who provide the services have a responsibility to ensure the removal of any offensive material that constitutes the bullying of pupils or teachers, even where it stops short of being illegal.

John Bercow: Sadly, the bullying of children with special educational needs is all too common, and it is extremely welcome that the Government intend to produce specific guidance on that. Regardless of whether one uses the word bullying or the more accurate term of inadvertent unfairness, there is a problem among some teaching staff. Because they have not received training in handling such childrenthose with speech, language and communication difficulties, for instance, or those on the autistic spectrumthey wrongly mistake as bad behaviour the actions of a child who simply does not understand what is expected of him or her. Help is needed in that regard as well.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; he and I have discussed that matter outside the confines of the Chamber. His point also provides another reason why it is wrong to exclude pupils from school without appeal: there will be occasions when the behaviour concerned is linked to a disability or condition that the pupil has, and that should be properly taken into account.

David Lepper: I welcome the Minister's comments on the engagement of the industry in addressing cyberbullying. However, does he not share my concern that instances of bullying are sometimes posted on websites that originate outside this country, and that there is therefore an international dimension that probably requires the involvement of not only his Department, but others as well, in trying to get an international agreement to deal with the issue?

Kevin Brennan: That is absolutely right. There is an issue to do with the first amendment of the American constitution; many of the websites concerned are hosted in the United States. We are governed by European law.
	Let me also say this in response to my hon. Friend's point: many of the companies that advertise on such websites would be horrified to learn that their brand was appearing next to the kind of content we are discussing. While we are doing all we can internationally to get appropriate regulation, we could also influence websites by pointing out to some of the major brands where their advertising is appearing, and what content it is appearing next to. That is one way in which we might apply pressure where we do not, strictly speaking, have jurisdiction.
	We also commissioned Childnet International to produce our cyberbullying guidance, which provides schools with advice on safe and responsible use of the internet, on how to prevent cyberbullying in the first place, and on what action to take to get images or text taken down from websites. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) referred earlier to sometimes inadvertent bullying, and our new online campaign, called Laugh at it and you're part of it, aims to make young people more aware of the fact that viewing offensive content, even if they have not generated it, sending messages and thereby passing such content on, and laughing at it makes them part of the bullying. That is a very important message to get out to young people who might otherwise think that such behaviour is harmless, and who do not associate it with real suffering on the part of an individual.
	It is important that the Safe to Learn guidance, including the cyberbullying and homophobic bullying guidance, is put into practice. I have therefore asked the Anti-Bullying Alliance and the national strategies to work with local authorities and schools to ensure that the guidance is being embedded effectively, and we will be closely monitoring how it is used.
	That brings me to the third front on which we can fight bullyingby empowering the pupils and the victims themselves. Giving young people the facts about bullying and how to protect themselves is crucial, but we must also equip them mentally and emotionally with the resources and resilience that they need to recognise offensive behaviour, to stand up for their rights and those of others, and to understand others' feelings and resolve conflict themselves.
	Since coming back into education as a Minister, having left it in 1994, I have noticed that, as everybody involved in education will recognise, all the acronyms have changed. I have decided that we need a new word in the English language to describe all the acronyms that we no longer use: anacronym, which means an anachronistic acronym. I want to tell the House, however, about a new acronym: SEAL, which stands for the social and emotional aspects of learning.
	SEAL is a programme that allows pupils to explore some of these issues in the classroom and to find solutions to deal with them. In my view, every good school is based not just on a good record of attainment and a firm grip on bad behaviour, but on leadership and positive values. SEAL contributes to that value system by promoting tolerance and respect throughout the whole school, and by facilitating better relationships between staff and pupils. It is not a soft optionit is a valuable lesson for life. I believe firmly that, unless we help to strengthen the emotional intelligence of our young people in this ever-changing and hectic world, we will find it harder to develop their academic intelligence, too.

Barry Sheerman: Much of what my hon. Friend has been speaking about regarding Government action on this issue is first class. However, does he agree that one real problem is that, if we do not give leadership to young people in our schools, we will never keep pace with and crack bullying? The only school in which I have seen that achieved is the Blue school in Wells, in Somerset. It empowers students to deal with bullying through active citizenship, which really cracks the problem. That is the only way in which I have seen bullying expunged.

Kevin Brennan: I have heard of the work of the Blue school in Wells, and of its school council. I know that my hon. Friend has visited the school and seen what happens there. He is absolutely right: it is by creating a culture of empowerment among young people that we will really get to grips with this problem.

Chris Bryant: There are two elements that my hon. Friend has not referred tothe family and the youth serviceand although he might say that that is because this is a debate about bullying in schools, they are material to this subject. In fact, a lot of the bullying that happens around schools happens away from the school premises itself and is part of kids' life. The youth service can make a dramatic difference by enabling kids to face up to these issues in a non-academic environment. Also, nearly every bully is the child of a bully, and if we are unable to tackle some of the parenting problems in society today, do we really stand a chance of weeding out bullying?

Kevin Brennan: I do not want to stray too wide, and my hon. Friend is right that we could get into a debate about extended schools, the work that we are doing with parents and so on. That would be going a little wide of the mark, and I know that you are strict in your observance of these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say, my hon. Friend is, as usual, correct in his observations.
	Some 60 per cent. of primary schools have implemented the SEAL programme, and it is just being introduced in secondary schools following a successful pilot project. We have provided 10 million of funding between 2007 and 2011, with the aim that every school will be in a position to use the programme by 2011. My Department also funds ChildLine in Partnership with SchoolsCHIPS; it is the only instance when we actively encourage chips in schools these days. Through that programme, pupils are encouraged to become peer mentors or supporters. Pupils who are being bullied will often prefer to talk to one of their peers before talking to an adult.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister has been generous in allowing interventions, although he has been speaking for 27 minutes. I might have missed something, but I do not think that he has mentioned two words: parents and guardians. Perhaps he is remiss in that.
	This issue was touched on by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and at one stage I thought that I might agree with him for once. What about having active policies to engage and support the parents of bullied children in schools and, just as importantly, the parents of children who are doing the bullying, who are often shocked and dismayed by the behaviour of their children?

Kevin Brennan: That is important. I believe I had mentioned parents, although perhaps I did not use the words guardians. We can develop this theme during the course of the debate, and I am conscious of the amount of time that this speech has taken, but I should say that we are funding organisations that do work in this area, including Parentline Plus.
	We have had SEAL and CHIPS in this debate, which is an interesting combination. CHIPS, another acronym, runs mediation, befriending and listening-based schemes, which allow children and young people to support each other. Through these schemes, pupils can take responsibility for promoting good behaviour, preventing bullying, and helping to keep their peers safe.
	I have been admonished for talking for a long time, even though I have given way several times, so I shall wind up by saying that I am confident that these new measures will give teachers, parents and pupils the resources, and the confidence, to deal with bullying. I hope that members of the House will agree that they are a significant step forward in tackling bullying in all its forms.

Nick Gibb: This is an important debate, in which there is unlikely to be a huge difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government. We welcome the various guidance that has been issued by the Department, in particular the Safe to Learn guidance. Poor behaviour in schools is parents' No. 1 concern about schoolsit even comes before concerns about standards, although one tends to affect the other. Bullying is the sharp point where poor behaviour in a school acts directly and painfully upon an individual, and we are all too familiar with the consequences. The Select Committee on Education and Skills reported on bullying earlier this year. It said that the effects of bullying cause a
	number of problems ranging from general unhappiness, poor concentration, low-self esteem, psychosomatic symptoms and anxiety to depression, self-harm or suicide.
	Data on the extent of bullying in schools is sparse, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), said in his intervention on the Minister. The Home Office's offending, crime and justice survey examined the proportion of 10 to 15-year-olds who were victims of theft or assault. Some 25 per cent. said that they had suffered an assault, 14 per cent. with no injury and 11 per cent. with an injury. Of those who had suffered an assault with injury, 61 per cent. said that it had taken place at school, and of those who had suffered assault without an injury, 68 per cent. said it had taken place at school.
	Ofsted's 2003 report into bullying mentioned a survey by Professor Peter Smith, whom the hon. Gentleman interviewed during the course of drawing up his report. That survey, conducted in 1999, said that
	between 10 and 20 per cent. of pupils interviewed in England had been bullied in the six months prior to the survey.
	Ofsted also found that surveys of children and young people suggest that bullying in schools is more common than adults sometimes think.
	That view was also reflected in the Select Committee report, which cited evidence from Barnsley council's children's services scrutiny committee, which found that
	only 18 per cent. of parent governors and governor chairs felt that bullying was a problem in their schools compared with 64 per cent. of pupils.
	The NSPCC points out that between April 2006 and April 2007, Childline counselled 37,500 children about bullying, and that bullying is the primary reason for children calling the service in the past 11 years.
	Whatever the data, it is fair to say that the problem is extensive, but that several initiatives by the Government and voluntary bodies and charities, such as Beatbullying and the Anti-Bullying Alliance, have had some modest success in changing the culture in many schools to one in which bullying is no longer seen as acceptable. Initiatives such as peer mentoring and clear anti-bullying school policies, set down in writing, must be part of that approach and we welcome all the initiatives that the Government have undertaken.

Barry Sheerman: We all hate bullying and we are all keen to have anti-bullying policies, but the Select Committee found that not enough research had been done before the policies were introduced. We did not find enough evidence of thorough research on which to base the policy.

Nick Gibb: Yes, I took that important point from the report. Good research in education policy generally is crucial, and many of the problems in education have arisen from a lack of proper, scientifically conducted research. However, I also share the Minister's view that we do not want to impose too high a burden on schools in recording and reporting data for policy-making purposes, although if schools are taking a thorough approach to bullying, the data should be available as part of the way that they deal with the problem.
	Bullying is an especial concern for children with special needs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said. According to the National Autistic Society, two in five parents of children with autism have said that their child has been bullied in school. For children with Asperger's, that rises to three in five. Mencap has said that eight out of 10 children with a learning difficulty have been bullied80 per cent.
	Bullying is clearly linked to the general level of behaviour in schools. A school in which behaviour is out of control or poor is likely to have a higher level of bullying than one where standards of behaviour are high. Ofsted's first recommendation in its 2003 report suggested that schools should
	Maintain the momentum on action against bullying through initiatives to improve attitudes and behaviour in schools generally.
	Poor behaviour in schools remains a major problem. It is one of the key reasons teachers give for leaving the profession. In too many schools, the prevalence of so-called low-level disruption goes unchecked and remains a fact of life. I have seen it first hand and I hear horror stories from heads who have successfully taken over failing schools.

John Bercow: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that the very prevalence of bullying in schools of children with special educational needs underlines the importance of continuing and extending the drive to ensure that special educational needs co-ordinators are, as a matter of course and as the norm, not the exception, part of the senior management of the school, driving forward the anti-bullying policy?

Nick Gibb: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard tragic stories of children with special needs who have suffered terribly from bullying in mainstream schools that went unchecked. I met a nine-year-old boy at Cedar Hall school in Benfleet, which is a special school for children with moderate learning difficulties, who had been suicidal at his previous school. It is tragic that a child of that age should try to throw himself from a moving car on the way to school because he was so miserable there. One wonders what was happening in that mainstream school if that poor child was being bullied so remorselessly that he threw himself down the stairs at home and tried to get out of a moving car on the way to school. That prompts questions about inclusion and the policy to close down special schools.
	Heads who manage to change the behaviour in their schools do so through a rigorous and uncompromising approach to discipline. The rules are clear and enforced consistently. In one school that I visited in Milton Keynes, one of the assistant heads walks the corridors of the school during lessons with a mobile phone. If a teacher has a problem with a child in class, he or she calls the assistant head who takes the child away. Consistent punishments are applied to such a child, so that every child in that school knows precisely what will happen. As a result, behaviour at the school is excellent. At a secondary modern school in Trafford, I saw a boy wearing trainers being told to go home and change into black shoes or stay in isolation all daya strict school uniform policy strictly enforced.
	It is unfair to blame poor behaviour on the intake of a school. Whatever the background of a child, the school should provide a safe and structured environment. I know of schools in challenging areas that have superb behaviour, and schools in leafy suburbs where behaviour is out of control. Eston Park school in Middlesbrough is an outstanding school serving a relatively deprived area. Student behaviour at that school is, according to the most recent Ofsted report, excellent.
	At Mossbourne academy in Hackney, 50 per cent. of the intake qualify for free school meals but behaviour is exemplary. Children stand up when an adult enters the classroom, and the atmosphere is one of calm studiousness. Three members of the teaching staff are on duty in the canteen at lunchtimeone in the queue, one where the food is served, and one supervising the tablesand teachers eat with the students. In the playground, I saw five members of staff on duty. That is consistent with Ofsted's observation of what constitutes an effective strategy to deal with bullying. It notes on page 13 of its report:
	Teachers supervised the canteen, encouraging year groups to mix socially... Steps in other schools included introducing more indoor social areas, having more lunchtime clubs and activities.
	The prevalence of extensive extracurricular activity is one of the common characteristics of schools that have not only good behaviour, but high standards of academic achievement. Boredom, whether in lessons or at break-times, is a key contributor to the culture of bullying.
	I visited one school in Lincoln that had a fantastic atmosphere. The culture and ethos of that school was that it was cool to work hard and study hard. I met one 15-year-old who was wearing a tie that was different from those worn by others around him. It was a worn and slightly tatty tie. I asked him what the different pattern on the tie meant. He said that he was awarded the tie in year seven, when he was 12, because he had scored more than 100 merit points. I asked him whether wearing the tie was not big-headed and might encourage jealousy. He replied that he had earned it, and was therefore entitled to wear it. He said that he had not had any adverse reaction; the contrary was the case.

Barry Sheerman: He was 6 ft 3 in.

Nick Gibb: He was not 6 ft 3 in.
	At that school, academic achievement was acknowledged and publicly rewarded, as was sporting prowess and achievement. Too many of our state schools, certainly in the recent past, have been reluctant to highlight excellence on the ground that it might undermine the confidence of those who fail to win. But if a school does not reward academic and sporting achievement, the message is sent that those are not important accomplishments. The vacuum of what is important is filled by others: the toughest kid; the most hilarious child in the classroom; the biggest clown; the biggest bully. Those become the sought-after accolades.
	A few years ago, that school in Lincoln had a child with a particular medical condition who underwent a sex-change operation. Pupils there were aware of what was happening, but because of the atmosphere of the school, and the way that teachers handled the matter, the child suffered no bullying or difficulties from other children. I have cited some individual schools, but many other secondary schools have achieved a similar atmosphere in which behaviour is excellent and bullying is at a bare minimum. We need to spread such best practice throughout the school system.
	People talk about schools not being responsible for what happens beyond the school gates, and the Minister touched on that issue. I have heard head teachers in schools whose names include the word community saying just that, even after the arrival of the new powers under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. However, I recently visited a Cumbria comprehensive whose head said precisely the opposite. When he hears that youths at his school have been causing trouble in town, he finds out who they are and takes action against those perpetrators the next day in school. He believes that his school is very much part of the community.
	As the Select Committee reported, bullying often takes place on transport to and from school. The Committee found one school that, after establishing that bullying was taking place on certain buses, arranged for prefects to travel on those buses for a time. That is an excellent practice. However, many comprehensive schools simply do not have prefects. One of the common characteristics of the best performing schools is that they have prefects, a head boy and a head girl. That gives responsibility to young people, but also provides a valuable resource for maintaining good behaviour and clamping down on bullying. If pupilsalbeit the older onestackle bullying, that can be very effective, as they really know what goes on in the school.
	I want to make one final point, which I hope will not be controversial. We tend to grapple for answers to some of the problems facing schoolswhether bullying, truancy, obesity, poor literacy or poor ability in mathsindividually, with guidance or initiatives. All those are welcome, but our approach tends to be to look at the problems individually and then tackle them. However, it is possible that all such problems have a common cause and that if we tackle that, we will be able to tackle each problem. I think that many such problems have common or at least interlinking causes. A report by the Effective Pre-School and Primary Education Project, or EPPE, was published this year. The report is long, with many interesting findings, one of which is particularly relevant to this debate. The report found that
	Children who attend a primary school identified as more academically effective...show reduced 'Anti-social' behaviour at age 10.
	It defined academically effective according to value-added scores, not the raw test results, so it was not simply reporting that schools in middle-class areas had good behaviour. It stated that children at primary schools that provide a high-quality academic education tend to behave betterthat there is a link between academic achievement and good behaviour.
	There is much merit in that argument. If a child is successfully learning how to read and do maths, if he or she is learning interesting facts about the history of our country, the geography of the world or science, they will be absorbed. If, on the other hand, a child is not taught properly and they are struggling, or the curriculum is dull, they will be frustrated and likely to lash out. From my visits to schools in the past few years, I know that those with a rigorous approach to teaching, and whose curriculum is demanding, knowledge-based and interesting, tend to have well behaved pupils.

Barry Sheerman: I have not heard the words independent sector this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, to this day, bullying is endemic in many independent schoolsmany famous public schools. Their curriculum is challenging and their prep schools presumably had lots of interesting lessons, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is still obvious evidence of bullying in the independent sector.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which was made earlier. Most schoolsall schoolshave bullying, and it is difficult for any school to claim that it has none, because they deal with individuals who interact with one another. However, from my observation of independent schoolsand I have not visited as many as I have state schoolsI think that they have the problem relatively under control and are keeping it to a bare minimum. It is a matter of degree.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might be basing his assertion on 19th-century novels rather than on what is happening today. I go around such schools and see happy children learning, busy and actively involved in the activities of the school.
	That is the key: if children are busy, with their minds stretched by rigorous academic work and their bodies exercised by good sport and other activities, they do not have time to engage in poor behaviour or bullying. I believe that in schools where there is genuine academic study, regardless of ability level, as well as the expectation and delivery of good discipline, there is a buzz that comes from the work. When boredom and malaise prevail, other distractions come to dominate. Mixed-ability teaching, in which children with a wide range of abilities are taught together, is a potent source of the disaffection and boredom that can lead to poor behaviour and thence to bullying.
	The attitude in primary school that says that competitive sport is bad, and that there are no individual winners, only winning teams, is not just newspaper tattle. It is evident in thousands of primary schools in this country, and it inevitably renders sport less interesting, and therefore obesityone of the problems that I highlighteda threat.
	Rather than continually having to tackle the symptoms of poor educational practice, we need to look at what the best performing schools do, and make sure that that best practice is spread throughout all our schools. Bullying is one of those symptoms: its pernicious and damaging nature means that we need the initiatives and policies of recent years to tackle the problem now. However, we should also look more carefully at the causes of bullying to ensure that it is not yet another result of a failed educational orthodoxy.

Barbara Keeley: A key group of young people who experience bullying at school has not been mentioned in the debate so far. I am referring to young carers: surveys suggest that seven out of 10 of them have been bullied, with eight out of 10 being called names, and five out of 10 being physically hit or abused.
	I understand that that level of bullying is much higher than the average, which is that three children out of 10 are normally affected by name calling, with two out of 10 being victims of violence. Most distressing is the knowledge that the bullying of young carers is a regular occurrence: 45 per cent. of young carers say that they are bullied on most days, and 20 per cent. have missed school as a result of being bullied. Indeed, bullying may be responsible for the fact that young carers in our society remain hidden. Who would want to identify themselves as a young carer when to do so would put them in a group treated as different from other young people, and subsequently abused either physically or verbally?
	As has been noted already, bullying is a serious issue for all children and young people, but to me it seems much worse that young people with caring responsibilities must bear the additional burden of being bullied by their peers. Part of the difficulty in dealing with that is the extent to which young carers are hidden. The 2001 census estimates that there may be 175,000 carers under 18 in the UK, but many agencies working with young carers believe that that may be an underestimate. We know that 3 million children in the UK have a family member with a disability, that a quarter of million young people live with a parent who is misusing class A drugs, and that at least 1 million are the children of alcoholic parents. Many of those home situations will lead to caring responsibilities for a child or young person.
	Surveys of young carers have been carried out by Loughborough university's young carers research project in 1995, 1997 and 2003. They show that, for children and young people aged from five to 18, caring tasks include some child care and domestic tasks. Nearly two in 10 young carers also perform intimate care tasks, such as helping with washing, dressing and toileting. More than eight out of 10 young carers surveyed were giving emotional support to the person cared for, providing supervision of that person's emotional state and trying to cheer them up when they were depressed. The surveys found that young carers who are girls are almost twice as likely to carry out those intimate caring tasks, but that both boys and girls offer high levels of emotional support.
	A young carer can start offering care at between five and 10 years old, and can continue to do so for many years. Over 60 per cent. of those surveyed were caring for between three and 10 years, 44 per cent. for three to five years, and 18 per cent. for between six and 10 years.
	High levels of caring can clearly have an adverse impact on a young person's education. Just over eight out of 120 young carers care for up to 20 hours a week, while around one in 10 care for between 20 and 49 hours, and about seven per cent. care for more than 50 hours a week. However, caring for even 20 hours a week, or three hours a day, can have an adverse impact on a child or young person. Imagine that when we were young we had to give up as much as three hours a day to carry out the tasks I described earlier. Caring makes a difference to a child's lifeat home as well as at school. It affects the child's ability to see friends and will limit their social or leisure activities, such as taking part in team games. At certain ages, it limits the amount of time available for homework or other school work.
	Surveys carried out in 1995 and 1997 showed that a high proportion of young carers missed school as a result of their caring responsibilities. There was a gap between 1997 and the next survey in 2003, which interestingly showed that the figures had improved. What made the difference was the fact that young carers projects, of which there are about 200, have started to work with schools. That improvement between 1997 and 2003 is important.
	None the less, despite the excellent work of young carers projects, 27 per cent. of all the young carers of secondary school age who were surveyed and 13 per cent. of those of primary school age still said that they experienced educational problems. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the figures are higher for young carers looking after someone who misuses drugs or alcohol. As many as four in 10 of such young carers were having educational difficulties. The figures could be higher, because 1 million children are living with parents who misuse alcohol.
	Bullying of young carers happens for a number of reasons. According to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, young carers report that they are taunted about the condition of the person they care for; if their parent suffers from a mental health problem, for instance, someone might say to the young carer, Your mother's a psycho. Such bullying is similar to the prejudice-driven bullying to which the Minister and other Members have referred. In some ways, it is similar to the bullying of children with disabilities or other types of special educational need; the young carer becomes a proxy for the person for whom they are caring.
	Bullying can occur simply because young carers are different; for example, they do not join in after-school activities. Another key aspect is that financial problems in families who live chaotic lives due to the misuse of drugs or alcohol mean that young carers cannot have the same clothes, games or computers as other young people. Being differentstanding out in the crowdis one of the reasons why children are bullied. As one young carer put it:
	All my friends are worrying about boyfriends and I am thinking about shopping and paying the bills.
	The Salford young carers project told me that children who are carers may also be different because they are not being properly looked after. They may be going to school in a dishevelled state, with dirty clothes or poor personal hygiene and that will make them stand out.
	The difficulty is that although many of those problems must be obvious to teachers and other adults at the school, young carers do not want to talk about them. Tony Watton, who manages a young carers project in Nottinghamshire, told me:
	Young carers don't want to highlight the bullying as it will highlight their situation at home.
	He said that it was a vicious circle and was one of the biggest issues dealt with by young carers projects such as his.
	A young carers service in north Yorkshire found that 75 per cent. of young carers were not known as such by their teachers. In several surveys, young carers commented that they considered themselves stigmatised by both their teachers and their peers and felt that their schools could and should be more understanding of their situation. Few schools provide counsellors or mentors to support young carers, yet where there are mentors children find their support helpful.
	I first encountered young carers and a young carers project in 1996 when I was vice-chair of Trafford social services. The mayor of Trafford picked the local young carers project as his fund-raising charity and a group of us visited it. I recall being astonished when I discovered that children as young as five could take on caring responsibilities for their parents or other family members, and that is still the case today.
	I recently spoke at a conference on young carers that was run by the children's services network of the Local Government Information Unit. The children's services network had produced an excellent document on issues for young carers. It seemed to me, from speaking to people from local authorities and schools on the day, that there is knowledge of what constitutes good practice in support for young carers. Over recent years, young carers projects have developed guides for teachers and protocols for social services authorities. I believe that it is now time that we introduced legislation to underline the support that schools should be giving to young carers.
	In April this year, I introduced the Carers (Identification and Support) Bill, the second part of which contained provisions that would improve support for young carers. The Bill would require schools and children's services authorities to have in place a policy to support young carers. Further clauses state that local authorities must make sure when assessing needs for community care that adult support services ensure that there is an alternative to relying on the support of a child carer.
	In some ways, we are talking about families, and we should recognise not only that such children are suffering at school, missing out on education and being bullied, but that someone from adult social services probably knows about their family and is working with them and has assessed their parents. Yet what is missing once those assessments are done, is that the social services authorities do not ask about the parenting responsibilities of those people. They should ask not just how can they manage in the family, but about their being parents. The Bill would finally require local authorities to have a joint protocol between adult and children's services to ensure that they work collaboratively where an adult has become dependent for support on a young carer. Over the years that I have learned more about young carers, I have formed the view that we should say that young caring is not acceptable. We should not accept that young people should have their school lives and leisure time impacted on by caring. In the interim, however, we should take the steps outlined in the Bill.
	On 10 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families said that, when he was preparing for his new brief, he was
	shocked to learn of the 150,000 young people in England and Wales, currently under the age of 18, who are caring for a sick or disabled relative, often a parent.
	He also said:
	Social services departments and education authorities in particular need to ensure that those young people are supported, so that they are not excessively burdened, their childhood is not strangled by their responsibilities, and they are given educational priority.[ Official Report, 10 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1337.]
	That is a very worthy aim for a new Secretary of State to espouse in one of his first comments on young carers. However, we are very far from that situation. There were some very knowledgeable people at the recent conference run by the children's services network, but they are only a small group who understand such things.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not alone in his first reaction to discovering the existence of young carers. We have had debates in Westminster Hall on young carers, and hon. Members have expressed their emotions when they discover all the things that young children are doing. My right hon. Friend is not alone in hearing about those issues, and I hope that his briefing that day included the bullying of young carers that I have raised today.
	I accept that young carers still remain largely hidden in our communities. It is a very good thing that, over the years, 200 young carers projects have developed. However, given the number of Members, there is probably not a project in most constituencies, so many hon. Members do not get to see their work. I pay special tribute to those projects for the work that they do, but I recognise that, in many parts of the country, there is no such project working with schools.
	The other side of the equation is that, with about 30,000 schools across the UK, we cannot expect to map those 200 young carers projects on to those many thousands of schools, so that they can inform schools about young carers, develop awareness of young carers and take up the young carers support policy. Tomorrow, there is a debate on the third sector, the voluntary sector, and all those organisations are charities. Given their funding and support, we cannot leave all the implementation to them, although they may pioneer good policies. I believe that it is right for the Department for Children, Schools and Families to take on that work.
	Carers rights day will be on Friday 7 December and that week the all-party parliamentary group is planning to hold an event in Parliament on young carers. We hope that we can bring in members of the national young carers forum, which has recently been formed, so that they can meet their MPs. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who now has responsibility for young carers, will be able to meet some of those young carers. I can relay some of the issues of bullying and the difficulties that they face in schools, but there is nothing better than listening to the young people themselves. The people who take on so much in their lives need to know that MPs and Ministers in the Government understand their issues and will do something about them. I shall write formally on behalf of the group to invite my hon. Friend to the event.
	I also hope that the legislation to achieve the aims that I set out in my Bill can soon be introduced to assist young carers and to ensure that their schools recognise and support them more fully in the future. Even without legislation, there are things that the Department might consider and the Minister might take them forward. If we accept that this is very much a health issue and that we have an initiative on healthy schools, I suggest it would be a step forward to make the recognition of, and the taking of action to support, young carers one of the criteria necessary to become a healthy school.
	I extend the invitation to meet young carers to Members on both sides. I hope that we can listen to those carers and make it clear that we recognise that they carry a big burden and that that burden includes bullying. We want to do something to alleviate that in future.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the fact that the Government have called this debate. This topic receives far too little attention, and whenever we talk about education and the media report on educational matters the focus is usually on school performance, exam results, league tables and so on. We hear far too little about child welfare. Indeed, children often say that the biggest cause of stress for them in school is that they are tested so much. However, the second biggest reason for children feeling stress at school is bullyingeither because they have been the victim of bullying or have witnessed it happening to other people.
	Bullying undermines every single objective of Every Child Matters and, in particular, the aim of ensuring that children are safe and healthy in school and enjoy their time there. Despite what every head teacher will say when we visit them, bullying exists in every school. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children statistics have been referred to already and they show that in the most recent year for which figures are available 37,000 children rang ChildLine to ask for support. That is surely the tip of the iceberg.
	The nature of bullying has changed fundamentally recently. The Minister mentioned the internet and if one searches on YouTube and puts in the key words bullying and schools, as I have done, one will come up with thousands of hits. Many clips are available on the internet. The misery of bullying was once confined to the school yard or the school bus, but it has been transformed into a spectacle that the entire world can witness. Some of the images on this and other sites are of such shocking violence that if they were of an adult on an adult, they would probably be the subject of criminal proceedings. The owners of the websites are far too complacent; surely they should take down the images at the earliest opportunity.
	The Minister and others have also mentioned text bullying. Even a child's bedroom is no longer a sanctuary. If a child suffered bullying at school or on the bus, they used to feel safe when they arrived home. Now, because of modern technology, they can receive a threatening message even when they are at home. I have met representatives of Orange, O2 and Vodafone to discuss what they are doing to find technical solutions to the problem. I hope that a solution can be found soon.
	In the past, people might have been bullied because they were the school swot or there was something about their clothes or their appearance, but identity-related or prejudice-driven bullyingparticularly on the grounds of race, sexuality or disability is now a disturbing facet of the problem. When the Education and Skills Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence on the matter, we heard about all three aspects, including from Support Against Racist Incidents, which, although it is a national organisation, happens to be based in Bristol, West. The most awful report that has been sent to me in my present role or since I became a councillor in Bristol in 1993 was that from SARI showing the dreadful violence and prejudice expressed against citizens in Bristol and throughout the country. When the Committee took evidence from SARI, we heard that despite the fact that schools have a statutory duty to report incidents of racismwhether they are bullying or notthe organisation feels that racist bullying is under-reported.
	The Committee also heard about homophobic bullying from Educational Action Challenging HomophobiaI am sure that it is a coincidence that the organisation is also based in Bristol, Westand Stonewall. Stonewall's recent school report survey, which was based on interviews with 1,100 children and young people, showed that two thirds of those people had experienced bullying while they were at school and that three fifths of them had not reported it to the school or their parents. Why would that be the case? They might have thought that nothing would be done, or perhaps there was no school policy, but it probably happened because they were fearful of the consequences of confirming their sexual identity at a young age.
	Homophobic bullying is different from other forms of bullying because while a person who is bullied because of such aspects as their race or religion will have a peer group to turn to, a person who is bullied because they are gay, or suspected to be gay even though they are not, will not usually have a peer group in the school to turn to. Additionally, they will probably not have had the important coming out conversation with their parents at that age. Stonewall's report showed that half the people surveyed felt that they could not be themselves while they were at school. Homophobic bullying snatches away an integral part of a young person's identity.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the third form of identity-related bullying, which relates to special educational needs or disability. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) referred to the evidence that Mencap gave to those of us participating in the debate, which showed not only that 82 per cent. of people with a learning disability had experienced bullying, but that 60 per cent. had been physically hurt by the bullyingit was not just taunting. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, mentioned autism. The bullying of children with autism is the cruellest form of bullying simply because the bullied child might not realise that they are a victim of bullying and might not have the communication skills to convey the fact that they are a victim to their teachers or parents.
	I have said something about the problems and incidence of bullying in schools, but what about the solution? It is important that the profile of bullying is raised. In addition to our debate, we will have anti-bullying week between 19 and 23 November. During last year's anti-bullying week, I recorded a clip, which was put on to YouTubethis is something positive to say about the siteabout bullying and, especially, the importance of tackling homophobic bullying. The clip has had more than 4,300 viewings, and it is one of the most watched clips by any Member of Parliament. If hon. Members have not yet seen it, they can go and search for it after the debate.
	Many mainstream charities, such as the NSPCC, are focusing specifically on bullying, while specific charities, such as Beatbullying and the Anti-Bullying Alliance, bring people together. Teachers' unions, the Select Committee and, to be fair, the Government are taking the subject tremendously seriously.
	A motion on bullying was passed at our party conference in Brightonit was only about four weeks ago, but in light of recent events it seems a lifetime ago. We suggested that there should be a whole-school approach on tackling bullying and a policy for each type of bullying. We said that every school, without exceptionthe hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned faith schools earliershould adopt a practice and policy on the different types of bullying. Stonewall is giving the Department support in preparing a pack on homophobic bullying and I think that that is about to be released. Can the Minister confirm that it will go to every single school and that he will ensure that every single school implements the policy?
	We call for every school to ensure that there is a member of the senior management team and a member of the governing body who are responsible for making sure that people adhere to the bullying policy. Our most important recommendation is that there be professional counselling for victims of bullying. The NSPCC suggests that it should be independent, but I do not have a specific view on that. Perhaps the counselling could be done by the school's pastoral staff. I visited the NSPCC team in Bristol who provide independent counselling support for children who have been bullied in the city's schools. I was tremendously impressed by the team's work, but I was shocked by some of the incidents with which they have had to contend.
	We can also tackle bullying through the curriculum. Citizenship education has been mentioned already, but there is an important role for school councils, too. Every time that I visit a Bristol school, I ask to meet the school council, and I always ask its members what they, as children, are doing to ensure input in developing anti-bullying policies. The Minister mentioned social and emotional aspects of learning, but I do not think that he mentioned personal, social and health education. If it was compulsory in every schoolat the moment, implementing that curriculum is voluntaryevery child would understand the diverse nature of 21st-century bullying, and that would contribute to a reduction in bullying. The issue is not really money; it is just a matter of political will, and of schools showing a real commitment to tackling the problem.
	So far, the debate has been consensual, but I was disappointed to hear what was said in Prime Minister's Question Time, the weekly circus that we all have to witness. Our party is quite used to the Prime Minister or the Chancellor deriding Liberal Democrat spending commitments, but I was surprised today when the Prime Minister included our policy on bullying in those that he derided. I hope that he will repair the damage that he has done by giving the impression that ensuring consensus and treating bullying seriously is not an objective. In the past year, the only specific spending commitment that we have made on bullying is through our support for Beatbullying's 4QuidAKid campaign. The charity has estimated that it would cost 4 per child to put in place a specific programme of anti-bullying work in every school in the country. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor, he pledged that his Government would bridge the funding gap per pupil between independent and state schools. That gap is many thousands of pounds; surely he can find 4 to implement an anti-bullying policy.
	Bullying is an emotionally crushing experience for tens of thousands of pupils. It undermines their attainment and leads to truancy, and the legacy can often remain with someone later in life. All schools should be safe places for learning. I think that today's debate will give the victims of bullying some hope that their plight is being taken seriously.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). He referred to the Prime Minister's comments, but perhaps he takes them too seriously. I fear that they were a cheap jibe in view of this week's events, but I think that the hon. Gentleman made his point well. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who made a passionate and authoritative speech that focused on her work of raising the issue of carers, for which she should be commended.
	There is a great deal of consensus among Members on both sides of the House on the issue. I hope that we will not be involved in any partisan point-scoring this afternoon, because we all want the same things. There are parts of the Government's policy with which we Opposition Members certainly agree. We agree with the guidance given under the auspices of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 on removing knives and other offensive weapons from schoolchildren who bring them to schools. We generally support Safe to Learn: Embedding Anti-Bullying Work in Schools, the new guidelines launched by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families last month. However, there is the wider context of social change and the breakdown of deference, the culture of respect for other people in schools, and authority generally. How children feel about their lives, their families, their future and their environment was shown in sharp relief by the UNICEF report of February 2007, which regrettably showed that the UK's children are among the unhappiest in the developed world.
	This is an important debate and I regret that more Members are not present to listen and to contribute to it, but speculating on the reasons for that may be above my pay grade.
	In 2005, 32,000 children contacted ChildLine to report that they had been bullied, and 70 per cent. of those had been bullied at school. As the House probably knows, 81,000 children received fixed-period exclusions and 1,780 received permanent exclusions in the education year 2004-05 for assaults on other pupils. Similar figures were recorded for verbal abuse and threatening behaviour. That is a significant badge of shame for our school system.
	Regrettably, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is no longer in his place. Reference was made to the Committee's very good report of March 2007, which reached a number of key conclusions on bullying. The report made it clear that the Committee was concerned that
	casual attitudes to violence seem to be becoming more common,
	and that there was
	a lack of respect for other people, a lack of respect for difference, and anti-social behaviour, as well as bullying.
	The report identified the fact that children who had been the victims of bullying at school were, bizarrely, often excluded on the grounds of health and safety, instead of the root cause of bullying being dealt with by the school authorities, as it should have been.
	The key issue in the report was the lack of demonstrably reliable data about the prevalence and types of bullying. The hon. Member for Bristol, West made the pertinent point that bullying should not be treated as a catch-all concept. There are different types of bullying. For instance, a Muslim girl might be bullied because of the way she dresses, because she wears a scarf, or because she has to leave school early on a Friday for Friday prayers. Equally, an evangelical Christian who reads the Bible in school, because that is what they have been taught and that is their family background, might be bullied. Religious bullying is not a single phenomenon. We need to deal with bullying at the lowest possible level and in a professional manner, through school management and through counselling.
	The Select Committee found that
	a lack of accurate reliable data on bullying is one barrier to more effective anti-bullying work,
	and expressed concern that
	decisions on anti-bullying policy are being made with very little evidence to guide them.
	The problem of bullying must be seen in the context of school discipline. If I may be partisan for just 30 seconds, school discipline was a major plank of the 2005 Conservative general election manifesto, and it was rubbished by some senior Ministers, who claimed that that was not at the top of the agenda for electors. I am glad to see that the Government have taken on board our arguments and are developing policies based on our 2005 manifesto. We knew then that it was indeed a major issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out the link between discipline, standards and a reduction in bullying. The corollary is that poor discipline results in more bullying.

Kevin Brennan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that discipline has always been in vogue with me, including when I used to be a classroom teacher. However, if we attempt to raise the bar further on discipline and it thus becomes more difficult to pass that bar, may I have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will not revisit this issue and pretend that standards have slipped when in fact we are raising them?

Stewart Jackson: The Minister asks a pertinent question. Unfortunately, he is out of time with his accusations, as the partisan part of my speech is behind me and I am now moving into more consensual mode. As it happens, Conservative Members supported the Government on key areas of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The media, of course, concentrated on the issue of academies. I must confess that I have an interest to declare, as England's largest academy, the Thomas Deacon academy, is based in my constituencyand a very fine school it is, too. I shall refer to it again later.
	We supported the Government on that Bill, which received Royal Assent at the end of last year. In particular, we supported clauses 80 and 81, which required schools to develop a behaviour policy; clauses 82 to 84 on the statutory power to discipline pupils; clauses 89 and 90 on parental contracts and orders; and clauses 95 and 97, which require parents to take responsibility for their children in the immediate period after their exclusion from school.
	Poor discipline continues to be a major problem in all schools and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made clear, it has the biggest impact on the education of the vast majority of well behaved children. Last year, 220,000 pupils were suspended from school more than once, which was up from 19,000 in the previous year. In some senses, we are seeing a crisis of school discipline. As I mentioned earlier, in 1,587 schools, more than 10 per cent. of pupils have been excluded; and in 192 schools, more than 30 per cent. have been excluded. That, to my mind, is a crisis of indiscipline. Truancy is also rising, as 3.7 million school days were lost in the spring term this year.
	A report from earlier this month, commissioned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, showed that it was not just the secondary sector that has problems, as one in four primary school children were shown to have been the victims of playground bullying. It often happens because children are bored and have nothing to do; they have recourse to bullying in the absence of any meaningful alternative focus at the time.
	Members should cast their minds back a few months to the publication of a report in the quality newspapers about the absence of a playground in the Thomas Deacon academy in Peterborough. There was a minor outcry in my constituency at the fact that children had nowhere to play. However, when the facts and figures were examined, it emerged that there was a reason for not having a playground. I emphasise that we are talking about a playgroundnot playing fields or a theatre or activity roomsand it was absent for a specific reason. The school wanted to build out the risk of childrenoften those from poor backgrounds in the east of my constituencybeing bullied because of the way they spoke, how they looked, their parents' backgrounds and so forth. The decision was based on best practice at other successful schools.
	The other issue is that there is a philosophy and ethos of excellence in that school. I put aside partisan differences. I did not agree with much that the former Member for Sedgefield, Mr. Blair, did, but he did the right thing on academies. Of course he filched the policy from the Conservative party. The city technology colleges policy was pioneered by the last Conservative Government, and it was the right policy. It would be infantile for us to say anything other than that we support it now if it helps our children to succeed in a difficult world.
	The Thomas Deacon academy took the brickbats and the flak in deciding not to have a playground because it wanted actively to tackle bullying. It opened on 7 September, and I hope and expect its methods to work.
	One way in which to tackle bullying at primary school level is to deal with the physical environment. That approach has been pioneered by the national school grounds charity Learning through Landscapes, and includes the provision of friendship benches, buddies and active teacher role models who encourage stimulating play. The idea is to focus kids' minds rather than just throwing them out into a playground for 20 minutes. They will be able to take part in physical activity, and a child who may feel isolated or may be prone to bullying can be looked after, cared for and mentored by an older child on a friendship bench. In some parts of the country, that approach has been proved to reduce the amount of bullying in primary schools.
	However, as I said earlier, we must also focus on the children who do the bullying, and on their parents, because it is a difficult time for them. We must not focus only on the children who are bullied and on their parents and families, although of course that is vital as well. I echo the view of Parentline Plus that, although legal sanctions are importantand Conservative Members strongly support themthey must be accompanied by strong parental support. As the organisation said recently in remarks published in  The Guardian,
	we... take calls from parents of bullies appalled at their children's behaviour and not knowing which way to turn.
	That sense of isolation, shame and stigma can exacerbate an already difficult and traumatic situation.
	I congratulate my local authority, Peterborough city council, on its initiatives to tackle bullying. It is rolling out one of them, BRAVE, in all the schools in Peterborough. BRAVE stands for bold, resilient, assured, valued, empowered, which is what the council wants local children to be. It will launch the initiative at a conference in Peterborough in January.
	The council is very much involved in anti-bullying week, which begins on 12 November. Its children's services department is sponsoring two key activities in Peterborough schools. In the primary sector it is sponsoring E-ngage, an interactive experience enabling children to explore situations and receive advice and guidance online from a team of experts. In the secondary sector there will be a dramatic workshop with the rather frightening name Silent Screen, involving a performance that children can take back to their schools, develop and adapt to local circumstances. The council is also working with the Cambridgeshire constabulary's safer schools initiative.
	I pay particular tribute to Jack Hunt school, which has a strong anti-bullying policy including a restorative approach project to ensure that children make amends for the bullying and know that bullying is wrong. I also congratulate Peterborough city council in general on its innovative approach to tackling all forms of bullying.
	I echo what Members on both sides have said about children with special educational needs. The bullying of disabled children in particular is deplorable. As was said earlier, in January this year Ofsted published a report on SEN provision in further education. It stated that 18 of the 22 colleges that Ofsted had visited lacked expertise in assessing students' capabilities, which in turn made it difficult to measure their progress. Although learners' achievements on accredited programmes were found to be good, they did not always meet students' stated needs.
	There is a wider context. Dare I say that the issues have been looked at in great detail by the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)? There are some practical issues that we need to grasp in dealing with bullying. We need to end the right of appeal panels to overrule expulsions. That is a vital first step. We want to see an end to the panels second-guessing head teachers' decisions to exclude pupils.
	We must have enforceability of home school contracts. Many schools already have those contracts, which set out in black and white what is expected of the school, the child and the parent, but they must be enforceable and they must be seen as a requirement for admission and a ground for exclusion. Teachers, and head teachers in particular, must have their authority and autonomy restored as a corollary of professional respect.
	We must also protect teachers from spurious allegations. That, too, will bolster their professional respect. That is an important message to send out to pupils and parents. Controversial as it has been, we must look again at the inexorable rise in the number of special schools that are closing. We have all seen this happen over the years: when disabled children or children with special educational needs are put into mainstream schools, some will cope but many will not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said, one child being driven to suicide or to think about suicide is one too many.
	It has been excellent to have an opportunity to talk about these issues, which are extremely important. We have had a constructive debate. There is consensus across the House on dealing with the issue. We welcome the initiatives that the Government have undertaken, including last month's statement. We will support the Government where they are right, as we did on the Education and Inspections Bill, and we will hold them to account where they are wrong. I hope that there will be other occasions when we can discuss these vital issues.

Angela Watkinson: Before I add my brief remarks to this consensual debate, I would like to endorse the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) to young carers. My local police have an awards ceremony once a year for young achievers in the borough, and young carers always feature prominently. Over the years, I have been surprised by how many very young children take on quite extensive responsibilities of caring for dependent parents and for siblings, too. I have never received notification of a bullying case involving a child carer, but the hon. Lady has made me aware of the possibility, so I will be looking to ensure that none of the young carers in my constituency is suffering in that way.
	Bullying is a base negative human instinct which goes back to time immemorial. As I listened to the debate, I recalled how I was bullied by one child when I was in primary school. At the time I did not know whyI had no idea why that particular child had taken such a dislike to me, wanted to hit me and would waylay me on the way home from school. I was not a confrontational sort of child and used to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid that bullying. With hindsight, I see that that probably exacerbated the problem; I did not face it. Listening to the debate and all the various possible reasons why children are bullied, I think it was probably because I used to be first in the classin those days, every child in the class was ranked. At home, I was expected to be first and if I was not I had to explain why. I can understand now how a child who was not first could have found that extremely irritating. After all these years, I forgive her.
	I also experienced a brief instance of bullying fairly recently. It was perpetrated by an adult, but I am sure he was a bully when he was at school. I was coming down the stairs at West Ham tube station, and I was wearing high-heeled shoes and carrying two heavy bags. Having suffered a serious fall at that station a year or so ago, I am always very wary there, so I was using the handrail. Coming up the stairs, however, was a man wearing flat shoes and carrying nothing in his hands. He just stood and stared at me; then he said, I'm no gentleman, and would not budge. I had to teeter around him to get down the stairs. I think that for some people bullying is a personality thing: if they are bullies at school, it is likely that they will go on to become bullying adults. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we try to find ways of reducing bullying in schools.
	Of course, nowadays there are far more opportunities for bullying and more imaginative ways of doing ittexting, blogging and via websites, for example. The principle, however, is the same age-old one: picking on somebody who is weaker or different in some way and attacking them either physically or psychologically for some sort of personal satisfaction.
	The victims are chosen for all sorts of reasons, some of them inexplicable. The reason can be purely their physical appearance. I remember that, when I was a child, children with red hair were picked on. I do not know whether that persistsfashions change, and I think that nowadays red hair is admired. Back in those days, children might also be picked on and bullied because they were unusually tall or short, or fat or thin, or had a big nose. Clothing has been referred to: if a child wears clothes that are noticeably different from everybody else's, that can be used as a reason for bullying. That is one of the benefits of school uniform. It makes everyone appear the same and eliminates at least one opportunity for bullying or picking on peoplebecause they look different.
	Other motives for bullying include jealousy of a child who is especially pretty or good looking, or the fact that the child belongs to a particular grouphe or she is gay, or Jewish, or a Jehovah's Witness. Children might also be bullied for being particularly clever; that is often a source of annoyance to other pupils. On the other hand, they might simply be non-confrontational and an easy target, ora subject several Members have referred tohave a speech impediment or a physical difficulty or mobility problem. Children with an impediment who attend mainstream schools are sometimes subjected to bullying because of that.
	I worked in a special school for many years. I concede that it was very small compared with mainstream schools, but bullying was virtually unknown. Students had a wide range of disabilities, including those relating to speech and mobility and those that are not visible, but there was a common thread: they all accepted each other's disabilities without comment, disregarding them as much as possible and carrying on with life.
	One Member referred to the discipline involved in staff members eating with pupils at lunchtime. That was one of the habits in that school: the staff always ate with the pupils. Some of them came from homes where they had not learned to use a knife and fork properly. They did not understand the sharing of food at a table, so it was served in terrines and they learned to make sure that there was enough for everybody. They learned many different types of interpersonal skills that are acquired through social eating, such as the benefits of discussion during a meal, and even of arguing about something without coming to blows, but enjoying differences of opinion. Those social skills are very important, and they all contribute to the elimination of bullying.
	The interesting question is why do young people bully? Why do bullies do it? That is a complex subject, and there are a wide range of possible contributory reasons. They might be very unhappy themselves. The various causes of unhappiness are almost endless. They might have very low self-esteem, which could originate from low achievement in school. They might be bullied at home: some families have a whipping boyone person in the family who is always found to be responsible for everything that goes wrong. They might witness other family members bullying in their homes, so it is a learned habit. Bullying might be the only way in which they can feel that they have any power or control over their own lives.
	There is also the influence of video games. Most young people have access to computers, and from what I have seen, all video games are based on violence and attacking. My grandchildren watch them, as well. I think that the games are perfectly horrid, but they all seem to like them. However, some children could be influenced to the extent of wanting to carry out these acts of violence on other children at school.
	One very difficult thing for schools in dealing with bullying is finding witnesses. The essence of bullying, which is a very cowardly act, is that it is often done when nobody is looking. In fact, the bully usually makes sure that nobody is looking. Schools therefore receive the complaint from either the bullied child or their parents, and then have the extremely difficult problem of investigating and finding out exactly what happened before they can deal with it.
	The schools in my borough, and particularly in my constituency, are extremely good and are of a very high standard; they all have bullying policies in place. I am a governor at two of them, so I know this from personal experience. They also have school councils, even the primary schools. I have been very impressed by the standard of debate and their good meeting habits. The children learn to listen to other people and are taught not always to force their own point of view, to give equal respect to others' points of view, and to discuss possible ways of overcoming problems. School councils make a very good contribution to dealing with bullying, and they can come up with their own ideas. Children often have a very different perspective from adults and, using lateral thinking, may suggest another way to approach a particular case of bullying. There are peer mentoring schemes, even in the primary schools. I have been impressed by the level of common sense and good will in very young children in trying to work together to overcome problems.
	Parents associations also play a very important role. The greater the level of parental involvement in the life of a school, the better the machinery of school works and the greater the opportunities to deal with bullying and any other problem that comes up in the life of the school.
	We all get cases of bullying referred to us, and I want to refer to one in particular. Typically, we receive a letter from a constituent who is extremely worried about their child, who is being bullied at school. My first question in that situation is, Have you discussed it with the school governors and with the head teacher? Sometimes, they have not, and I will never step in and interfere in the life of the school until due process has been followed. In the case to which I want to refer, the school had a very difficult decision to make. Quite a difficult child from a difficult family background was undoubtedly bullying another child in a violent way. The bullied child's parents wanted the bully to be excluded, but the school was concerned that, if the child was excluded, it would have no control over what was happening outside schoolas we all know, the bullying process does not stop at the school gate. It is very difficult for schools to please everybody in these circumstances.
	The school tried very hard to do the right thing, and the whole school got involved. When the bullied child was persuaded to come back, their peers made sure that they were always escorted during circulation time between lessons and were never left on their own. The school went to endless lengths to overcome the problem, but as I say, it is impossible to please everybody.
	Schools can do their best, and that is the essence of how we will resolve this problemby everybody working together. The pupils, the governors, the parents association, individual parents, the teachers, the ancillary staff, dinner ladies on duty in the playground, the groundskeeperseverybody needs to work together. Unfortunately, the police are also sometimes involved. Bullying is not a problem that any one group can solve alone. Government, of course, have the role of legislating, but we need to work together to reduce bullying. That will be a long haul, because as quickly as we resolve one method of bullying, no doubt others will emerge.

Kevin Brennan: I know that it is traditional on these occasions to say that we have had a good debate, but that is what we have had. All the contributions have been extremely useful, well informed, and helpful to me in my role as the Minister responsible not for bullying but for policy on bullying. It would be inappropriate for me to be responsible for bullying, as an ex-member of the Government Whips Office. This has also been a well behaved debate, and I congratulate everybody on that, given the issue that we are discussing.
	I would like to reply to the debate by talking about the contributions initially. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who made a speech from the Conservative Front Bench, spoke about behaviour in our schools and, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), I hope he will join us in the mission to raise the bar on discipline in our schools. I think that he will do so, because I know that he is genuinely concerned about these issues and is sincere in his desire to improve standards in our schools. If we raise the bar and it is consequently difficult to get over it, I hope that he will be straightforward in his assessment of thatI am sure that he will beand acknowledge improving standards where they are occurring. That is always a matter of concern, because it is so easy to take a headline figure and for it to be used in a way that is not entirely consistent with what is happening on the ground, although I know that he would never misrepresent anything. I am sure that he will be fair in that way.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned consistency and the importance of academic standards, in that a lack of quality teaching is potentially a root cause of bullying and has other impacts. Consistency is important in school discipline, as is fairness. Pupils respond well to an orderly, calm environment, as he described, and they also respond well to consistency and fairness. Some of the other contributions acknowledging the importance of involving the pupils themselves in helping to set and agree the standards, through school councils and other methods, was an important feature of the debate.
	I mentioned the social and emotional aspects of learning. Although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to that in his speech, I hope that he will examine some of the research on it, because I understand that he did not initially welcome that specific programme. I sincerely invite him to take a look at it, because it is having an impact and I hope that he will feel able to welcome its further extension in coming years. I thank him for his contribution.
	We heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who spoke with a quiet eloquence and passion about young carers, and managed to range extensively on that subject while keeping perfectly in order in relation to today's topic of bullying. She raised an interesting point about the particular vulnerability of young carers to be the potential victims of bullying. She also mentioned the 200 young carers projects that are in place around the country, and I would be interested to see some of the work that they are undertaking. She rightly pointed out that although 200 may sound like a lot, it does not represent one project in each constituency.

Barbara Keeley: There is a very good young carers project in Salford, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to take up the invitation to visit it. It is just about to extend its work into two high schools in my constituency, so it would be a good time to visit.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend has been very generous with her invitations to me this afternoon, as I think that that is the second one. I shall certainly look at trying to achieve that, if I can. I will also undertake to do my best to come along in December to meet the young carers at the event that she is hosting in the House and I am sure that other hon. Members will also wish to take her up on that invitation.
	My hon. Friend mentioned young carers and pointed out that it is another form of prejudice-driven bullying, but it is almost prejudice by proxy, in that many of the young carers have disabled parents or relatives, for whom they are helping to care. Her observation on that was astute. This week, I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health describe on Desert Island Discs how he was brought up by his sister after his mother died when he was 12, and that struck me as an example of how young carers can have a major influence on people's lives. His story is even more remarkable as a result of that background.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned her Billthe Carers (Identification and Support) Billand I commend her for the work that she has done on the issue. I will undertake to do my best to come along in December to meet the people from the young carers forum.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats about cyberbullying and how we could do more to ensure that the sites were more responsible. In the forum that we have set up, the companiesincluding some of the large players in the market, and he mentioned one in particularhave indicated their willingness, and we have to hold them to it, to take down offensive material and to ban users who abuse the sites. We also need to approach the issue from the other side and try to educate young people, parents and teachers on how they can make an effective complaint. They can go to the companies and ask them to take down some of the material and identify and deal with the abusers. If appropriate, they can also ensure that the issue is reported to the police and, where necessary, charges are brought. We have a job to do on that issue, and the guidance that we have issued on cyberbullying is an important part of that.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the sending of guidance to all schools on homophobic bullying. I should explain that the homophobic bullying guidance is part of the overall Safe to Learn document. That extensive online document is available for schools to order if they wish to have a hard copy, althoughas the Minister with responsibility for sustainability in the DepartmentI do not want to have too great an impact on the Amazon rainforest by sending out huge documents that schools do not want if they can be made available online.
	The hon. Gentleman might also have been referring to some further work that has been done by Stonewall and the Anti-Bullying Alliance. I understand that Stonewall is planning to send additional materials to schools in conjunction with the Anti-Bullying Alliance. That is not specifically a departmental initiative, and it is not yet clear what the distribution strategy is.

Stephen Williams: Given that the resource has been made available to schools online by the Government, how can the Minister be confident that every schoolespecially faith schoolswill implement the guidance?

Kevin Brennan: I have made it clear that I expect all schools to implement the guidance and we will use the national strategies and the Anti-Bullying Alliance to monitor what is happening in schools. The guidance applies equally to faith schools and we will monitor the implementation in all schools closely. It is a requirement for schools to develop a bullying strategy, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to talk a little about his party conference and the Prime Minister's remarks earlier today. He is right that there are many different types of bullyingI will not repeat the point about leadership bullying, which might concern his partythat sometimes require a different approach. That is what we are trying to do in our further work. It was remiss of me if I did not mention personal, social and health education lessons in schools, which are an important part of delivering that kind of education. I hope that he will also acknowledge, as I asked the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to do, the importance of the social and emotional aspects of learning programme. We have had independent verification that that has been effective in improving behaviour in schools.

Dan Norris: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government's approach does not embrace the so-called no blame approach to bullying? About 18 months ago, in response to problems in Bristol schools, the then Liberal Democrat-run council gave out an instruction to schools that pupils should not be punished for bullying other pupils, and I am still angry about that.

Kevin Brennan: I give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that the Government are not embracing the no blame approach. We have also made that clear to the Anti-Bullying Alliance. Bullies should always be punished. As we have discussed, further help might be required for bullies, their families and their parents, but I have no doubt whatever that it is a big mistake if the bully's actions have no real consequence. It is ultimately in the interests of the bully's own welfare and well-being that there should be such consequences.

Stephen Williams: I want to put on record that the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) is being slightly mischievous. When Bristol city council issued anti-bullying guidelines over a year ago, the so-called no blame approach was just one of the options that schools could take up, and a link to the then Department for Education and Skills website highlighted that no blame was an optionnot the sole option, but one of manyfor a school.

Kevin Brennan: For absolute clarity, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not our policy to support that approach to bullying. For the benefit of any local authorities or others who are listening, let me make it clear that such an approach to bullying is a mistake.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough made an important contribution. He said that the debate was important, and bemoaned slightly the lack of attendance for his speech, which was a great shame as it was well worth listening to. I suspect that the football might have had something to do with that, but certainly no one was excluded from listening to his speech.
	The debate was broadly consensual, but I have a fundamental difference with the hon. Gentleman over the issue of ending appeal panels, which is his party's policy. It is a bit of a dog-whistle issue: superficially, the argument is that we must back the head teacher, and that it is a mistake not to do so. We would all assent to that proposition in its raw form. It is not common sense, however, to say that a mistake could never be made about exclusions. Nor is it common sense to leave schools open to being sued through the courts and dragged into the judicial system as the only way to deal with that kind of problem. That would allow lawyers to line their pockets with money as appeals were made through the courts, judicial review or whichever mechanism was used, instead of through a simple, proper appeals mechanism.
	In 2005-06, only 1.4 per cent. of excluded pupils who appealed were reinstated, and only half went back to the original school they attended. It is a dog-whistle issue, and I understand why the Opposition are raising it, but it is not common sense. If they reflect on it, they will find that that is the case.

Nick Gibb: A quarter of appeals are overturned. That is a big concern to head teachers, who say that in many instances that deters them from making exclusions in the first place. The issue is a major drag on the ability of head teachers to impose discipline. We propose that there could be an appeal to the governing body of the school; it could be heard by governors who were not involved in the original exclusion.

Kevin Brennan: Ultimately, we want to avoid such matters getting to the courts, and I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the appropriate way to do that. Whomever is appealed to, he acknowledges that there has to be some sort of appeal. To pretend that an alternative form of appeal would be any different is not to be strictly open about the nature of the motivation behind that policy. That is one issue on which we shall have to agree to disagree.
	I want to refer further to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Peterborough. He said one other thing: that poor discipline is a major problem in all our schools. I am not sure whether he meant to say that; I wrote it down when he said it. If he did, I should say that I do not agree with him; as we have discussed, discipline, behaviour and tackling bullying are important, but poor discipline is not a problem in all our schools, as Ofsted's report today would confirm to him. In fact, behaviour has improved in recent years. However, we have agreed in this debate that we have to do better.

Stewart Jackson: rose

Kevin Brennan: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way because of the time available; I also want to comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson).
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the school playground, buddy systems and so on, and he talked a lot of good sense about approaches to reduce bullying that use peer mentoring and so on.
	Finally, I turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Upminster, who told us that she had been first in the class when a student. We saw why from her interesting and engaging speech, full of a lot of good sense. She also told us about an unfortunate incident that she personally suffered recently. The individual involved was no gentleman; that was absolutely clear.
	I was taken by her remarks about pupils eating together in school. I met representatives of the School Food Trust this morning, and we discussed that issue. The hon. Lady may be interested to know that my mother was a dinner lady in the primary school that I attended as a young lad. I had no choice but to learn how to use a knife and fork and eat properly. There is a lot in what the hon. Lady says: we should consider how to ensure a good environment for children when they have school meals. It should not just be a case of their turning up to eat at lunch time; they should learn social skills and table manners, if we want to call them that. They should learn how to use a knife and fork properly and how to have a discussion while having a meal. Those are important skills for any young person to learn. A lot of young people come into school without such skills, which we might expect them to have.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned how effective school councils can be. She may not mind my telling her, in another family reference, that my daughter was elected to her school council a couple of weeks ago; I am afraid that that is probably the effect of having an MP as a father. School councils are important, and I am personally aware of how useful they can be in dealing with problems such as bullying.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned technology and video games. Not all such games are violent; there are some good, educational ones. However, as I am sure she will welcome, we are having a review on the issuethe Byron reviewin the next few months, at the instigation of the Prime Minister. I am sure that any observation that she made to that review would be welcome. The review will specifically cover video games and their influence on children; I thought that the hon. Lady would be interested in that and want to make a contribution.
	We have had a good and consensual debate and I thank everyone for their contributions. The issue is very important: dealing with bullying is fundamental to the learning experience of pupils and a safe working environment for school staff. Clearly, on both sides of the House there is a commitment, which I welcome, to tackle the issues. A range of views has been expressed, and I thank all who spoke.

Bob Blizzard: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

highways

That the draft Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 19th July, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.

MALDIVES

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .[Mr. Blizzard.]

David Amess: On an evening when I am sure that some hon. Members are a bit gloomy that England got beaten 2-1 in the football matchalthough we can look for better things against CroatiaI hope to cheer everyone up with this debate about the Maldives.
	When we die, most of us aspire to enter paradise, even though we might be sinners. Well, I have news for the House: my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) had an early taste of paradise when, through the all-party parliamentary group, we had the opportunity to visit the Maldives earlier this year. No words can describe adequately just how beautiful the islands are. He and I had a splendid visit, and learned at first hand the challenges faced by the Maldivian Government. I bring the House the good news that we were given an open opportunity to visit all parts of the Maldives, and that next year's plans will result in democracy being well and truly delivered to the islands.
	Britain's relations with the Maldives began with our colonial expansion into south Asia in the mid to late 18th century. On 16 December 1887, the Sultan of the Maldives signed a contract with the British governor of Ceylon, turning the Maldives into a British protectorate. The British Government promised the islands military protection and non-interference in local administration, in exchange for an annual tribute paid by the Maldives. In 1957 the British established a Royal Air Force base in the strategic southernmost atoll of Addu, where hundred of locals were employed. Nineteen years later, the British Government decided to give up the base, as it was too expensive to maintain.
	The Maldives has been an independent state throughout its known history, except for a brief period of 15 years of Portuguese occupation in the 16th century. The Maldives remained a British protectorate until 26 July 1965, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that the ties between Britain and the Maldives remain very close, even though it is no longer a British protectorate. We remain a leading economic power, and rightly still contribute aid to the Maldives, which is a developing country. The great disparity in wealth between our two countries, and our shared history, places an obligation on Britain to continue to provide assistance to that island state.
	The Maldives is a small nation, but the House may not understand that it is made up of 1,200 coral islands, most of them uninhabited. The fact that none of them stands more than 6 ft above the level of the ocean makes the country very vulnerable to rises in sea level associated with global warming. With their abundant sea life and sandy beaches, the Maldives islands are often portrayed by travel companies as a paradise, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South can testify that it is.
	The Maldives islands are absolutely magnificent, but many Maldivians live in absolute poverty. The country has done its best to develop its infrastructure and industries, including the fisheries sector, and there has been a boost in health care, education and literacy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he has some splendid ideas about developing further educational links between our two countries. I think that he also has some points to make about human rights.
	In December 2004, the Maldives was hit by the Asian tsunami. Homes and resorts were devastated by the waves, precipitating a major rebuilding programme. The Maldives are beautiful but the country faces many challenges, one of which is the threat of rising sea levels.
	During our visit, we saw at first hand just how vulnerable the islands are and I want to outline briefly some of the issues. Mal, the capital, is home to the majority of the country's 300,000 inhabitants; it is by far the most developed of the Maldives islands. I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity to visit the island, but Mal is absolutely crowdedthere is nowhere left on the island for building or development. That is a real issue.
	To counter pressure on the capital, the Government have developed an extraordinary project; they have reclaimed and rebuilt an island, which will in time be bigger than the capital. Hundreds of people already live on the island and the Maldivian Government are considering the construction of a bridge or causeway to link Mal to the new island. So far, under the first phase, 1,500 people have gone to live in the housing that is being erected on the 465-acre island. It is an absolutely magnificent project.
	Hulamal is already the same size as the island of Mal and will more than double when the project has been completed. It is phased over 40 years and eventually the island will house 153,000 people. The vast, flat, barren rectangle is a far cry from the rest of the Maldive islands. The project began in 1997 and will be completed in a number of stages. It has already cost 30 million. Mal residents are being given priority in land and home purchases and the Government of President Gayoom are offering real estate at a 40 per cent. discount on prices in the capital as an incentive.
	The President has spent much of his 26 years in power warning of the dangers of global warming, erosion and shifting weather patterns. The reclaimed island offers an opportunity for British involvement in the development of the project and I hope the Minister will reflect on it.
	The new island will be 2 m above sea levela metre higher than Malas a safeguard against the rising ocean. Commenting on the threat of rising sea levels in relation to the project, the President said:
	There is encroachment of the sea on many islands, there is erosion of our beaches. We think the new Mal is sufficient for the time being. Of course we can't foresee what will happen 50 or 60 years from now.
	We hope that the island will be safe in the future.
	My hon. Friend and I visited a regeneration project on Dhiffushi island. The tsunami that hit south Asia in 2004 struck the Maldives on 26 December at 9.20 am. It destroyed lives and affected the livelihoods of a third of the population. The disaster severely affected the whole country, flooding all but nine islands13 islands were completely evacuated. The tsunami claimed 82 lives, left 26 people missing and displaced more than 15,000 people. It destroyed much of the country's physical asset base, including homes and entire settlements, public service utilities, such as hospitals, clinics and schools, transport and communications infrastructure, private businesses and livelihoods. The main industries of tourism and fishing were badly hit. The total asset loss is estimated at 62 per cent. of the Maldives gross domestic product.
	One island that was very badly hit by the tsunami was the one that my hon. Friend and I were taken to. There we saw a wonderful project to look after people with mental health problems, and we also saw a number of other projects. However, I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister the fact that the people there are struggling. They need more help. None of the Ministers and officials whom we met asked for anything, but, given the financial constraints, my hon. Friend and I thought that our Government could be encouraged to do a little more than is being done at the moment. The reconstruction project was absolutely wonderful.
	The Maldivian Government have proposed an investment programme of 200 million to meet the challenges caused by the devastating tsunami of three years ago. The work that has so far been completed on the land reclamation project has cost 33.25 million and the total cost of the project will of course be much greater than that.
	I congratulate our Government on the way that they have responded to the challenges and helped the Maldivian Government so far. The British Red Cross was also absolutely magnificent in helping to construct new houses. The Government have done the very best that they can to support the Maldivian Government, but many more challenges need to be faced.
	I shall end with a few remarks about the political situation. I want to praise my noble Friend Lord Naseby, who is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group. He has already met one of the election commissioners and was very impressed by the meeting. The view is that there will probably be a bigger turnout when the elections are held next year than there would be in a British general election, and he was very impressed by the arrangements that are in hand. The Parliament and the President sit for five years, and the President is chief of state and the Head of Government. When a referendum was held on the way forward, there was a very high turnout and 90,000 voted for the new agenda and 60,000 voted against. The outcome was very satisfactory and new elections are scheduled for 2008. I hope that our Government will enthusiastically send observers to oversee the election process.
	During the trip, my hon. Friend and I met the Speaker, the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor and we were given wide access to any number of officials. However, the Maldivian Government are concerned about Islamic fundamentalism.
	I say to the Minister that there are many commercial opportunities for the United Kingdom. The desire for development, the relaxation of foreign investment regulations, the level of political stability and the extent of existing cultural ties mean that the Maldives is a very attractive location for UK foreign investment. I encourage UK firms to grasp that opportunity, and that opportunity is to unite with the Maldivian Government in what my hon. Friend and I regard as an early sight of paradise.

Brian Binley: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and especially to the Minister for allowing me to take part in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for securing it.
	I am the secretary of the all-party Maldives group and although it is paradise, I can assure the Minister that work does take place in paradise. Indeed, we worked really quite hard and were well received wherever we went. As my hon. Friend said, the whole of society was opened up to us and we were taken wherever we asked to go. That is worth saying.
	As the Minister will know, there have been political difficulties in the Maldivian system. I know that the British Government have been heartened by the fact that the country embarked on a change programme two or three years ago. I am delighted to report to the Minister that the change programme is moving on apace. A problem might be that we see the Maldives as not the perfect democratic nation, but it is striving to get there. As my hon. Friend said, the referendum was very successful and a massive proportion of the electorate took part. Hopefully, the elections in September 2008 will prove conclusively that the Maldivian people are in possession of a representative democracy of which they can be proud. This is thus a good time for us to help the Maldives, which was a protectorate for so long and where English is spoken. The fact that the Maldives looks to our country as a model and a great friend certainly came over to my hon. Friend and I.
	What can we do? There is a real problem with education. There are about 80,000 pupils in Maldivian schools, but only up to secondary school level. Anyone who wishes to pursue further education to any extent must leave the country. When we asked the Minister, the honourable Abdulla Shahid, the areas of activity in which Britain might help, he suggested further education, especially in connection with British universities. We said that we would explore that area of activity, so my hon. Friend and I intend to contact our senior educational establishments. We are talking to foundations that might be able to help with the creation of a university college, or at least some attachment of that kind that could relate to a British university, given that the country uses British exams. We hope that something might come of that.
	The Minister is involved in and appreciative of relationships with the Maldives. He is what we in Northamptonshire might call a good old boyI hope that that is parliamentary language, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister is a kind man, so I wonder whether he might allow my hon. Friend and I to spend 10 minutes with him to determine whether we could pursue the possibility of working closely with our senior educational establishments with a view to helping the Maldivian people into the degree of higher education that is difficult for them to attain now.
	I am grateful for your kindness, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Kim Howells: May I join the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) in congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate? I welcome the close interest of the hon. Member for Southend, West in the issues that have been raised. If he does not mind my saying so, it is always a pleasure to debate with him. He believes passionately in the causes that he champions, as does the hon. Member for Northampton, South. I do not always agree with the hon. Gentlemen, but I recognise the force of their arguments.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the debate on relations between the United Kingdom and the Maldives. Mention of the Maldives will readily evoke images of picture-postcard islands and crystal-clear water. We have heard such a description today. I have not had the opportunity to visit the country, but, hopefully, I will do so one day. I cannot remember whether this was mentioned, but 100,000 British citizens go there for a holiday every year, which in itself is a testament to not only the beauty of the islands, but their potential, which was the most interesting aspect of the hon. Gentlemen's speeches.
	We enjoy excellent relationships with the Maldives, both bilaterally and through our shared membership of the Commonwealth. Many Maldivians hold Her Majesty the Queen and the United Kingdom in high regard. That is reflected at ministerial level, and through the close relationships between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Maldivian Government.
	In his visit in July, President Gayoom had an audience with the Queen. He also met my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown, the Minister with responsibility for Africa, Asia and the United Nations, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They reviewed our wide range of shared interests, which include education, trade, tourism and addressing the challenges of climate change. More recently, senior FCO officials met the new Maldivian Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdulla Shahid, and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Ms Dhunya Maumoon, who was educated in Britain. She is the daughter of the President and is married to a British national. Officials also met Mohamed Nasheed, who is the leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic party.
	I was interested in the suggestion that the hon. Member for Northampton, South, made about establishing closer contacts with UK universities; I could not agree with him more. We do not work hard enough at that. I will give him an undertaking: tomorrow night, I will have the pleasure of dining with the distinguished Professor Merfyn Jones, who is chairman of Higher Education Wales, which represents Welsh universities. I shall mention the subject to him, because he has done some pioneering work on contacts between Bangor university, of which he is the vice-chancellor, and Kuwait. Work is done on important maritime studies, and I have no doubt that issues such as climate change could easily be included.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West, mentioned that the Maldivians are extremely concerned about climate change, and he gave us the most vivid example possible. While I was swotting for the debate, I read that no point in the Maldives is higher than 2.5 m. When we read some of the predictions of what will happen if sea levels rise, we see that climate change poses the gravest threat to life and commerce in the Maldives. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject, and we want to work with him on it.
	When I made inquiries with our officials, they said, Look, as for contact between the Maldivians and us, we are no more than a phone call away. We have a very good relationship with the Maldivians, and it is not at a formal level. If they want to speak to us, they can do so at any time. I wanted to reiterate that in the House tonight, because it is an important point. We care a great deal about the Maldives. It has a very small population of 350,000, but as the hon. Member for Southend, West, pointed out, it has strong historical links with our country, and we want to nurture and strengthen those links.
	I was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman's description of the new town that is set to grow, possibly with a causeway connection to the capital, Mal. That is an exciting prospect. The hon. Gentleman probably already knows, although I admit that I do not, whether the Maldivians are looking closely at the new developments in the Gulf, where causeways are being used to enlarge the available building land. He made an important point when he said that it is easy to run out of land. We may be talking about the biggest occupied atoll in the world, but that does not mean that there is a lot of land there for development. Clearly, we are talking about a country with aspirationsI will come to the points that the hon. Member for Northampton, South, made on that subject later. It aspires not just to become a more transparent and vigorous democracy, although I believe that it is that, but to feed itself and to ensure a sustainable economy. As the tourism industry grows, so will the population, probablyand why should it not? However, it will be a fine balance, because there is not much room. From our own constituencies, we all know how difficult it is to get land for development, even though we have such an abundance of it. For the Maldives, the problem is acute.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen and the entire House will join me in condemning the appalling bomb attack on 29 September that injured 12 tourists, including two British nationals. We offer our sincere condolences to those injured, some of whom are still recuperating from the attack. The bombers, whoever they were, do not represent the overwhelming majority of the Maldivian people, who reacted with horror to the attack. Their reaction was not only of great comfort to the victims, but sent an unambiguous message to the perpetrators that the Maldives is united against terrorism. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown wrote to Foreign Minister Shahid on 4 October to express our gratitude for the generous and effective response of the Maldivian Government, the tourism industry and the Maldivian general public for their expressions of opposition to that outrage.
	I join the hon. Member for Southend, West in saying that that attack did not represent the Maldives. Perhaps it was designed to try to weaken confidence in the Maldives and to tell people that they should not go there. We have seen the same tactics being used in Sharm el-Shaikh and elsewhere. I have been impressed by the determination of the Maldivian people in re-asserting that that is a country worth living in and one which has a great future.
	I echo the words of the hon. Member for Northampton, Southif it was the hon. Member for Southend, West, I hope he will forgive mewho paid tribute to the work of the noble Lord Naseby, whom we know well. He has done sterling work in helping our Government and the House to focus on helping the Maldives to achieve a more democratic and transparent system of government. That has been a remarkable achievement. As the hon. Member for Northampton, South told us, the transition has not been easy and there is a long way to go yet, but we appreciate the fact that President Gayoom has set in train an ambitious reform programme to adopt a new constitution and to institute multi-party democracy.
	We should not underestimate the challenges in attempting to make the transition from a political system that was based heavily on patronage and state control to a multi-party liberal democracy in the space of just a few years. In some areas, such as freedom of expression and the media, the formation of political parties and the development of civil society, there has been good, albeit not always consistent, progress. We would like to see more movement in other areas. I understand that the new constitution is well on its way to being finished. I heard today that 13 chapters had been written. It is being put together by a constituent assembly, and the United Nations Development Programme has provided assistance in the drafting. That is encouraging news.
	In August the Maldives constitutional referendum was the first national poll since the creation of political parties. The hon. Member for Southend, West asked whether we could send election observers out there. We would like to do that, but whether we can is another matter. It is an important issue. We would certainly support full Commonwealth or European Union election observation missions and British participation in those missions to observe what promises to be the first multi-party elections next year.
	I am told, and the hon. Gentlemen have confirmed to me tonight, that because of the nature of Maldivian geography, with hundreds of small islandsI think that more than 200 are inhabitedan international observation team would not be able to cover the entire country. It is at least as important that there should be sufficient domestic observers, through the Maldives human rights commission and the political parties. I very much hope that we can take that forward.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock